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

It's no ordinary week in the migration sphere. This week saw the release of a long-awaited – and for some, alarming – inquiry into Swedish citizenship. The Swedish Government Official Report, SOU 2026:21, is here, and it's stirring both hope and outcry. As someone 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 heating up now.

What does the inquiry actually want?

The inquiry, led by experts who've dug deep into the legal paragraphs, 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 very 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 civic knowledge tests. Nothing particularly strange about that – most countries have similar requirements nowadays. But then comes the tricky part: revocation.

Mirjamsdotter: "Throw it in the bin!"

Liberal leader Mirjam Mirjamsdotter was quick to react. She published a debate article and said it straight out: the entire proposal about being able to revoke citizenship should be thrown in the wastepaper basket. "It's a fundamental pillar of the rule of law that citizenship should be permanent, not something the state can snatch back when it suits them," she said. She's not alone. Several referral bodies are likely 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 spotlight

While Mirjamsdotter wants to bin the inquiry, others want to go much further. This week, media reports indicate that the issue of revoking citizenship for convicted gang leaders is highly topical. This concerns 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 jungle. Making someone stateless violates international conventions, so it would only apply to those with another passport. Still, it's a hot potato in the election campaign – all parties want to show they're tough on gangs.

What does this mean for ordinary people?

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

• It gets tougher: The inquiry proposes stricter requirements, so don't expect it to get 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 crime or if you obtained it by lying.
• The debate continues: Nothing is decided yet. The proposals will go out for consultation, then politicians will negotiate. It could be years before we see a new law.

So, those of us who like to follow politics will have plenty to talk about going forward. Personally, I think Mirjamsdotter will have a tough time completely stopping the revocation ideas – the pressure from voters is too great. But the question is whether it can be done in a way that doesn't erode legal certainty. It's a balancing act that requires finesse. And these days, it's not easy being a politician with their fingers in this jam jar.