New citizenship inquiry for Sweden: Tougher rules and debate over revocation

It's no ordinary week in the migration space. This week, a long-awaited – and for some, alarming – inquiry into Swedish citizenship was presented. The Swedish Government Official Report SOU 2026:21 is here, and it's stirring both hope and outrage. As a bloke who's sat on the same park bench in Årsta for twenty years and watched how this country has changed, I can tell you: things are really heating up now.

What does the inquiry actually want?

The inquiry, led by experts who've dug deep into the fine print, isn't just about who gets to call themselves Swedish. It's just as much about who might potentially lose their citizenship. And it's that part that's got people raising their eyebrows. The proposals aim to tighten the rules: a longer period with permanent residency before you can even apply, requirements for self-sufficiency, and a civics test. None of that is particularly strange; most countries have similar requirements these days. But then comes the crunch question: revocation.

Mirjamsdotter: "Bin it!"

Liberal Party leader Mirjam Mirjamsdotter was quick to react. She put out an op-ed and said it straight: the whole proposal about being able to revoke citizenship should be tossed in the rubbish bin. "It's a fundamental pillar of the rule of law that citizenship should be permanent, not something the state can snatch back whenever it suits them," she said. She's not alone. Several referral bodies are likely to raise their eyebrows, not least the legal experts who see constitutional problems. This is no small issue; it's about the very contract between the state and the individual.

Gang leaders in the firing line

While Mirjamsdotter wants to bin the inquiry, there are others who want to go much further. Media reports this week suggest the issue of revoking citizenship for convicted gang leaders is very much on the table. We're talking about people with dual citizenship who've been convicted of serious crimes. Can the state then say, "you're no longer Swedish, off you go to your other country"? Sounds simple, but legally, it's a minefield. Making someone stateless goes against international conventions, so it would only affect those with another passport. Still, it's a hot potato in the election campaign; every party wants to show they're tough on gangs.

What does this mean for everyday people?

For you sitting at home with a cuppa, thinking about applying for citizenship yourself, or if you've got a mate who is, here's the deal:

• It'll get harder: The inquiry proposes stricter requirements, so don't expect it to get easier in the next few years.
• No retrospective revocation (probably): Losing citizenship after the fact is extremely rare and would only happen in absolute exceptional cases, like serious crime or if you lied to get it.
• The debate continues: Nothing's decided yet. The proposals are off for consultation, then the politicians will negotiate. It could be years before we see a new law.

So, for those of us who like to follow politics, there'll be plenty to talk about. Personally, I reckon Mirjamsdotter will have a tough time completely stopping the revocation ideas – the pressure from voters is too strong. But the question is whether it can be done in a way that doesn't erode legal certainty. It's a balancing act that needs a delicate touch. And these days, it's not easy being a politician with your fingers in this particular pie.