New Inquiry into Swedish Citizenship: Stricter Rules and Debate on Revocation

It's no ordinary week in the world of migration policy. 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 up both hope and outrage. As someone who's been watching this country change for years, I can tell you: things are about to get very interesting.

What does the inquiry actually propose?

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

Mirjamsdotter: "Toss it in the trash!"

Liberal party leader Mirjam Mirjamsdotter was quick to react. She published an op-ed and said it straight: the entire proposal allowing for citizenship revocation should be thrown in the garbage. "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. And she's not alone. Several referral bodies are expected to raise concerns, not least legal experts who see constitutional problems. This is no small matter; it's about the very contract between the state and the individual.

Gang leaders in the hot seat

While Mirjamsdotter wants to scrap the inquiry, others want to go much further. This week, media reports have emerged indicating that the question of revoking citizenship for convicted gang leaders is front and centre. We're talking about individuals with dual citizenship who have been convicted of serious crimes. Can the state then say, "you're no longer Swedish, go to your other country"? Sounds simple, but legally, it's a minefield. Making someone stateless violates international conventions, so it would only apply to those with another passport. Still, it's a hot-button issue in the election campaign, with every party wanting to show they're tough on gangs.

What does this mean for regular people?

For you sitting at home with a coffee, thinking about applying for citizenship, or for a friend who is, here's the situation:

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

So, for those of us who like to follow politics, there's plenty to talk about. Personally, I think Mirjamsdotter will have a hard 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 undermine legal safeguards. It's a balancing act that requires a delicate touch. And these days, it's not easy being a politician with your fingers in that particular jar.