Introduction
Recent developments in Sweden’s migration policy, particularly the rise of far-right tendencies and the incorporation of their restrictive positions into the country’s political and governmental discourse, have raised serious questions about the compatibility of these approaches with international and regional human rights frameworks. These developments have unfolded against a backdrop of increasingly restrictive immigration legislation, a significant decline in asylum acceptance rates, and the growing securitization of migration. Critics argue that policies such as severe restrictions on family reunification, the expansion of deportation measures, and stricter conditions for the examination of asylum applications may result in violations of fundamental human rights principles, including the principle of non-refoulement and the right to human dignity.
Concerns have also been raised about the impact of this discourse on increasing discrimination and violence against migrant and asylum-seeking communities in the public sphere. At the same time, supporters of these policies emphasize the need to preserve public order, reduce pressure on the welfare system, and reassess the asylum system in response to emerging challenges. A careful assessment of the situation requires simultaneous consideration of Sweden’s human rights obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, and European Union law, alongside domestic political and social developments. The tension between national sovereignty in determining migration policy and supranational obligations to protect individuals’ fundamental rights appears to lie at the heart of this complex dispute.
Incidents
- The Tidö Agreement (Tidöavtalet)
The Tidö Agreement (Tidöavtalet) is a domestic political agreement that formed the principal basis for the establishment of Sweden’s current government. It was presented on 14 October 2022 by the parties forming the government—the centre-right coalition—together with the right-wing Sweden Democrats[1]. The stated primary objective of the agreement was to establish a “responsible migration policy,” which in practice has meant a fundamental shift toward more restrictive immigration and asylum rules. The agreement serves as the political roadmap of Sweden’s current government, and a substantial share of the recent legislative reforms concerning migration and integration, including a number of laws and policy initiatives adopted in 2024 and 2025, have been pursued within the framework of its provisions or policies derived from it.
In implementing this policy, on 26 May 2025, the government appointed a special inquiry chair to examine the constitutional amendment proposed by the 2023 Committee on Freedoms and Rights and to submit proposals concerning the possibility of revoking the citizenship of certain dual nationals. The inquiry was completed in March 2026, and its final report was submitted to the government on 18 March 2026. In addition, another special inquiry chair was tasked with reviewing Sweden’s rules on granting residence permits on the basis of family reunification, with the aim of creating a more restrictive and more targeted system for family migration. The original deadline for the report was set for 25 August 2025, and the final report of the inquiry, entitled SOU 2025:95, was submitted to the government on 5 September 2025[2].
- The Proposed “Snitch Law” (Högerns angiverilag)
Under provisions that critics have referred to as the “snitch law” (Högerns angiverilag), six designated public authorities—the Swedish Public Employment Service, the Swedish Social Insurance Agency, the Swedish Prison and Probation Service, the Swedish Enforcement Authority, the Swedish Pensions Agency, and the Swedish Tax Agency—are required to provide information to the Swedish Police Authority where there are grounds to assume that a foreign national does not have the right to stay in Sweden[3]. The policy originates in the Tidö Agreement and has been pursued with the stated aim of strengthening the enforcement of removal and refusal-of-entry decisions and addressing unlawful residence in Sweden more effectively.
During consideration of earlier versions of the policy, teachers, doctors, social workers, professional unions, and human rights organizations warned that extending reporting obligations to service-providing sectors could undermine trust between individuals and public institutions and deter undocumented migrants and their families from accessing schools, social services, and healthcare facilities. Erika Söderberg, a social worker, is tasked with building trust in institutions such as schools and social services. She says that if she were required to report undocumented people to the police, it would make it more difficult for her to perform her duties. Söderberg sees no benefit in the proposal and argues: “There is a risk that children from undocumented families will stop coming to school if there is a possibility that they will be reported[4].”
Critics also warned that implementing such an obligation could restrict undocumented people’s access to healthcare. All children, including those living in Sweden without a residence permit, are entitled to medical care. Undocumented adults are also entitled to healthcare that is necessary and cannot be deferred. Nevertheless, critics have warned that even if healthcare providers are directly exempted from the reporting obligation, broader information-sharing among other public authorities may create fear of detection among undocumented people and indirectly discourage them from seeking medical care[5].
Despite widespread opposition from professional unions, human rights organizations, and some political parties, the proposal was adopted as part of a broader package of reforms aimed at strengthening return procedures by the Swedish Parliament (Sveriges Riksdag) on 15 June 2026, with the relevant provisions entering into force on 13 July 2026[6]. However, in the final version, schools, healthcare services, social services, and libraries were exempted from the direct reporting obligation[7].
- Financial Incentives for Migrants to Leave Sweden
After coming to power in 2022, Ulf Kristersson, the prime minister who, for the first time in Sweden’s history, relied on the support of the far-right Sweden Democrats to form a government, pledged to adopt a tougher approach to migration and crime[8]. Accordingly, in September 2024, the Swedish government formally introduced a plan to increase the financial support available for the voluntary return of migrants. According to the Swedish Migration Agency, the scheme was finalized in October 2025 and entered into force on 1 January 2026.
Under this policy, eligible migrants who are willing to leave Sweden and return voluntarily may receive up to SEK 350,000 per adult. The maximum amount is set at SEK 500,000 for couples and SEK 600,000 per household. This measure forms part of the Swedish government’s broader restrictive approach to migration and its policy of increasing voluntary return. The previous grant amounted to SEK 10,000 per adult and attracted very limited interest; in 2023, only one of 71 applications was approved[9].
At the same time, the Swedish government has excluded several categories of people from eligibility for this grant. These include Swedish citizens, Ukrainian nationals covered by the Temporary Protection Directive, individuals who have already received the grant, persons intending to move to an EU Member State or Switzerland, individuals with outstanding debts registered with the Swedish Enforcement Authority, and persons who have been convicted of a criminal offence or are serving a prison sentence[10].
- Bill to Ensure the Departure of Persons Subject to Removal Orders (säkerställd avresa)
In January 2025, the Swedish government adopted and submitted to parliament a bill aimed at ensuring that a greater number of individuals who had received removal orders or decisions refusing entry would leave the country. The bill was approved by the Swedish Parliament on 12 March 2025 and entered into force on 1 April 2025.
Under the new rules, a removal order or refusal-of-entry decision will generally remain valid for up to five years from the date on which the individual leaves the country in accordance with the decision. Where a longer re-entry ban is in place, the validity of the removal decision will continue until the end of that period. The reforms also introduced the possibility of imposing longer re-entry bans[11].
The amendments further abolished the mechanism commonly referred to as “change of track” (spårbyte), which had allowed certain rejected asylum seekers who had been employed in Sweden during the processing of their asylum applications to apply for a work-based residence permit without first leaving the country. The government stated that the purpose of these reforms was to make return procedures more effective and to reduce incentives for individuals to remain in Sweden after a removal order had been issued[12].
- Proposed Constitutional Amendment to Revoke the Citizenship of Dual Nationals
In January 2025, a cross-party committee tasked with examining amendments to the Swedish Constitution proposed allowing Swedish citizenship to be revoked from certain dual nationals. The proposal represents a fundamental shift in Swedish citizenship law, since under the current legal framework, Swedish citizenship cannot be revoked on the grounds that it was obtained fraudulently or because the individual subsequently committed serious offences[13].
Under the proposal, Sweden would be able to revoke the citizenship of individuals who either obtained it through false information, fraud, or other misconduct, or who, after acquiring Swedish citizenship, committed exceptionally serious offences related to national security, such as terrorism, espionage, treason, or crimes against humanity.
The proposal requires approval by parliament on two separate occasions, with a general election taking place between the two votes. In other words, it must first be approved by a simple majority in the Swedish Parliament, followed by a general election and then a second parliamentary vote[14]. If ultimately adopted, the reform would mark a turning point in Sweden’s citizenship regime and would have serious implications for migrants and dual nationals, as it would, for the first time, place limitations on the concept of irrevocable citizenship in Swedish law and raise concerns regarding discrimination, legal certainty, and the potential political use of citizenship.
The proposal was approved at the first stage by the Swedish Parliament on 20 May 2026. However, because it requires a constitutional amendment, its final adoption is contingent upon the 2026 general election and renewed approval by the newly elected parliament. If finally adopted, the amendments are scheduled to enter into force on 1 January 2027[15].
In response to concerns and criticism, Gunnar Strömmer, Sweden’s Minister for Justice, stated at a press conference: “The background is that Sweden is facing three very serious and simultaneous threats to its internal security: violent extremism, state actors acting in a hostile manner against Sweden, and organised and systemic crime[16].”
Likewise, Henrik Vinge, chair of the Sweden Democrats’ Committee on Justice, supported extending the scope of the policy to organised crime and described such crime as a form of “domestic terrorism,” pointing to its extensive capacity for violence, the silencing of witnesses, threats against social workers, and abuse of the welfare system[17].
- Abolition of Permanent Residence for Asylum Seekers and Proposal to Revoke Previously Granted Permanent Residence Permits
In 2026, Sweden took another significant step toward restricting access to permanent residence. On 9 June 2026, the Swedish Parliament approved the government’s proposal to abolish the possibility of granting permanent residence permits to certain groups, including refugees, beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, certain long-term residents, and their family members. The new rules entered into force on 12 July 2026.
Under the new legislation, individuals holding temporary residence permits in Sweden on the basis of asylum or a need for protection can no longer obtain permanent residence when their permits are subsequently renewed. Instead, the Swedish Migration Agency will only assess whether the conditions for extending their temporary residence permits are met. This change concerns the granting of new permanent residence permits and does not, by itself, revoke permanent residence permits that had already been granted before the law entered into force[18].
Alongside this legislation, a separate proposal concerning previously granted permanent residence permits had been presented on 26 September 2025 in an official government inquiry published as SOU 2025:99. Under that proposal, the permanent residence permits of certain categories of foreign nationals—including refugees, persons in need of protection, quota refugees, certain family members, and some other holders of permanent residence permits—could be revoked. Following such revocation, their eligibility for a temporary residence permit would then be assessed under the provisions of the Swedish Aliens Act.
One of the most significant exemptions envisaged in the proposal was that, if an individual applied for Swedish citizenship within the prescribed time limit and that application had not been rejected by a final decision, their permanent residence permit would not be subject to the main rule on revocation. However, the report did not propose any exemption from the general eligibility requirements for acquiring Swedish citizenship for individuals falling within these categories[19].
SOU 2025:99 proposed that the rules governing the revocation of previously granted permanent residence permits should enter into force on 1 January 2027. It estimated that approximately 98,000 people would, with a relatively high degree of certainty, fall within the scope of the proposal. When including another group whose status would require further individual assessment, the potential number of persons affected could rise to approximately 185,000.
Nevertheless, a clear distinction must be drawn between this proposal and the legislation that entered into force in 2026. The law adopted on 9 June 2026 only abolished the possibility of granting new permanent residence permits to specified categories. By contrast, SOU 2025:99 concerns the possible revocation of permanent residence permits that had already been granted and, as of August 2026, had not yet become binding legislation[20].
- Restricting Legal Aid for Asylum Seekers
In April 2025, a government inquiry published as SOU 2025:31 proposed significantly restricting asylum seekers’ right to public legal counsel during proceedings before the Swedish Migration Agency. Under the initial proposal, state-funded legal assistance at this stage would largely be limited to one hour of free legal advice, with the possibility of an additional hour where special grounds existed. By contrast, the appointment of public counsel to represent and assist the applicant throughout the first-instance proceedings before the Swedish Migration Agency would be abolished. At the judicial and appeal stages, access to public counsel would again be available, although the court could decline to appoint counsel in certain circumstances, including where an appeal was considered to have no reasonable prospect of success[21].
The proposal formed part of the government’s broader programme to make the asylum system more restrictive within the framework of policies pursued after the Tidö Agreement. Its stated objectives were to reduce costs and accelerate decision-making. However, human rights organizations and migration lawyers warned of potentially serious consequences, arguing that the removal of effective legal assistance could increase administrative errors and lead to unjust rejections of asylum claims.
The problem, according to critics, is that the Swedish Migration Agency, as the authority responsible for processing migration cases, is unable to perform many of the tasks that legal counsel would ordinarily undertake. For example, the Agency cannot assist applicants in gathering evidence or contact third parties on their behalf. As a result, vulnerable individuals, including women and children, could be left without anyone to defend their interests or help them obtain essential documentation. Consequently, the Migration Agency might not have sufficient information available to make a fair decision.
One further consequence, critics argued, would be that many lawyers specialising in migration law might no longer be willing to take on such cases because they would feel that, under these conditions, it was no longer possible to provide adequate legal support. Those who remained in the field might therefore be among the least experienced practitioners[22].
However, the proposal was subsequently modified during the legislative process. Under the rules that entered into force on 12 July 2026, an applicant for international protection is entitled to two hours of free legal advice at the beginning of the application process. If the applicant appeals a decision issued by the Swedish Migration Agency, they may also be entitled to free public legal counsel during the appeal proceedings[23].
Challenges and Responses
- Discrimination and Racism
In Sweden, discrimination and racism remain among the serious challenges facing migrants and asylum seekers. Many reports experiencing unequal treatment in everyday interactions, including in workplaces, educational settings, and public services, because of their ethnic, linguistic, or religious background. Even when such discrimination takes subtle or indirect forms, it can have wide-ranging consequences for social trust, access to healthcare and medical services, and the overall process of migrant integration[24].
In this context, assessments by the Council of Europe indicate that the gender gap in integration and labour-market participation among newly arrived migrants continues to persist in Sweden, with women having less access than men to measures related to the process of integration into society and benefiting from them to a lesser extent[25].
In addition, certain restrictive policies and approaches may unintentionally reproduce these inequalities and hinder migrants’ equal participation in society. For example, research and experience reported by the Equality Ombudsman (DO) indicate that individuals with Arabic or Muslim-sounding names, particularly men, may need to submit two to four times as many job applications as applicants with Swedish names in order to receive a response, even when they were born in Sweden and possess stronger qualifications[26].
- Domestic Reactions
The Stockholm-based international non-profit organization Civil Rights Defenders took a critical position on the Tidö Agreement. In a statement, the organization said:
“As a human rights organisation, we are deeply concerned about the content of the Tidö Agreement. The agreement lacks a rights-based approach. It contains a range of measures that are clearly at odds with the human rights standards Sweden is obliged to uphold and that undermine the rule of law and our democracy. The agreement is plainly repressive. We see a focus on longer prison sentences, including for children and young people, harsher penalties, expanded possibilities for surveillance and deportation, and measures that weaken the rule of law and human rights. We also see measures deliberately intended to make it more difficult to seek asylum, live as an undocumented person, or apply for protection, with the ultimate aim of reducing migration regardless of the consequences this may have for human rights or individual dignity. We also note that several measures in the agreement are directly inconsistent with Sweden’s international and regional obligations, as well as with Sweden’s own Constitution. The Tidö Agreement demonstrates that the global trend of democratic backsliding has now reached Sweden. For the past 40 years, we have worked to promote human rights, and now, more than ever, we must draw on this experience to defend fundamental rights and freedoms at home[27].”
On 29 May 2024, Swedish and international non-governmental organizations, trade unions, academics, and religious institutions also protested in the Swedish Parliament against the government’s proposal to require public-sector employees to report undocumented people. These organizations and institutions unanimously emphasized that mandatory reporting would lead to discrimination, stigmatization, and an intensification of racism. Many undocumented children, they argued, would no longer be able to attend school, while undocumented patients would face difficulties in accessing medical care. Teachers, doctors, and other public-sector employees would effectively be compelled to act as “border guards,” undermining their professional independence and ethical integrity.
Michele LeVoy, Director of the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM) and one of the critics of the proposed mechanism, stated:
“This proposal is utterly inhumane. This is part of a growing trend that criminalises solidarity with undocumented people across Europe, which exacerbates their marginalisation and segregation. Everywhere where obligations to denounce undocumented people have been applied, the result has been more discrimination, suffering and fear. Clear safeguards are urgently needed against data sharing between public services and immigration authorities. The Swedish government should withdraw this proposal and ensure all people can access public services safely, without risking detention and deportation”.
Bishop Andreas Holmberg of the Church of Sweden, Diocese of Stockholm, likewise stated:
“I share a concern with many within the Church of Sweden, not least among my deacon sisters and brothers, about how a reporting obligation can affect the vulnerable people we meet. We are really concerned that our close cooperation with the public sector and civil society may be obstructed if a reporting obligation becomes a reality. I am particularly concerned about how such a law will affect children who are already living in great vulnerability[28].”
- International Reactions
The Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor called on Denmark and Sweden at the United Nations Human Rights Council to end discrimination against migrants. In an oral statement before the Council, the organization urged European governments, particularly Sweden and Denmark, to immediately and unconditionally halt any plans of a discriminatory and punitive nature targeting migrants and asylum seekers.
Victoria Ceretti, a researcher with the organization, emphasized in her address to the Council that the proposal constituted a clear example of a discriminatory policy based on the mistaken belief that concentrations of migrants or asylum seekers are the principal cause of social problems. She warned that, should the Swedish government decide to adopt the discriminatory proposal, its implementation would likely be accompanied by stringent punitive measures.
She further noted that official discriminatory policies targeting migrants and asylum seekers fuel racial prejudice, xenophobia, and hatred, while also making it more difficult to implement protective legislation and measures and to facilitate their integration into society.
In conclusion, the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor called on European governments to end violations of the rights of migrants and asylum seekers and instead focus on adopting policies that facilitate their integration into society and the labour market[29].
Conclusion
Recent developments in Sweden’s migration and asylum policies reflect a clear and determined shift toward greater restrictiveness and more extensive control over migrant and asylum-seeking populations, implemented through legal, administrative, and financial measures. The Tidö Agreement and the bills and programmes introduced in its aftermath—including restrictions on family reunification, the revocation of permanent residence permits, increased financial incentives for voluntary return, and the so-called “snitch law”—all indicate a governmental focus on reducing the presence of migrants in society and accelerating the return of individuals.
At the same time, these policies have challenged Sweden’s legal and ethical structures and have generated serious concerns regarding discrimination, marginalization, restrictions on children’s rights, and access to public services. Domestic and international experience indicates that such approaches not only threaten the objectives of integration and social cohesion, but may also deepen inequality and systemic discrimination against vulnerable groups. From an analytical perspective, Sweden’s new policies illustrate the tension between national sovereignty and the supranational requirements of human rights law.
The government seeks to justify these restrictions by invoking the need to preserve public order and security. However, serious concerns and controversies have been raised regarding the compatibility of some of these measures with Sweden’s international and regional human rights obligations. Domestic and international reactions, including protests by human rights organizations and religious institutions, have characterized these policies not only as unjust and repressive, but have also warned that their implementation could intensify inequality, discrimination, and social distrust.
This situation underscores the importance of reviewing these policies through a human rights-based approach, with greater emphasis on the integration and protection of migrants and asylum seekers. It also demonstrates that, without such a reassessment, restrictive measures may have long-term social and humanitarian consequences for Sweden.
References
[1] Civil Rights Defenders. (2022, December 16). Our review of the Tidö Agreement (Tidöavtalet). Civil Rights Defenders. From: https://crd.org/2022/12/16/our-review-of-the-tido-agreement-tidoavtalet/
[2] Delmi. (n.d). Summary, Tidö Agreement. Delmi. From: https://www.delmi.se/Media/s0vdsfda/medicine-breakt_1755170134.pdf
[3] Lindsay, F. (2024, November 27). Sweden: Inquiry Recommends ‘Snitch Law’ For Undocumented Migrants. Forbes. From: https://www.forbes.com/sites/freylindsay/2024/11/27/sweden-inquiry-recommends-snitch-law-for-undocumented-migrants/
[4] Hameed Qamar, A. (n.d). The Tidö Agreement drags Sweden’s social welfare sector into ethical crisis. The Loop. From: https://theloop.ecpr.eu/the-tido-agreement-drags-swedens-social-welfare-sector-into-ethical-crisis/
[5] Picum. (2023, October 9). Sweden: government considers obligation to denounce undocumented migrants. Picum. From: https://picum.org/blog/sweden-government-considers-obligation-to-denounce-undocumented-migrants/
[6] Swedish Parliament. (2026, June 15). Returns to increase. Sveriges Riksdag. From: https://www.riksdagen.se/en/news/articles/2026/jun/15/returns-to-increase_cmsfc459b14-1bbf-4d7a-bd20-b3c465b9fc6cen/
[7] Government Offices of Sweden. (2026, March 19). Regeringen presenterar nya förslag för ett ökat återvändande. Government Offices of Sweden. From: https://www.regeringen.se/pressmeddelanden/2026/03/regeringen-presenterar-nya-forslag-for-ett-okat-atervandande/
[8] Ince, B. (2024, September 13). Sweden is asking migrants to go back. The incentive is $34,000 per family. TRT World. From: https://www.trtworld.com/article/18207506
[9] Euro News. (2025, May 4). €32,000 for the return of each refugee; Swedish Prime Minister tells Euronews: We are facing challenges in integrating migrants. Euro News. From: https://parsi.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/05/04/swedish-prime-minister-reaffirmed-his-desire-to-strengthen-immigration-controls
[10] The Swedish Migration Agency. (2025, October 31). The repatriation grant will be increased. Migrationsverket. From: https://www.migrationsverket.se/nyheter/news-archive/2025-10-31-the-repatriation-grant-will-be-increased.html
[11] Government Offices of Sweden. (2025, January 28). Government proposes measures to ensure that more people with removal orders leave the country. Government Offices of Sweden. From: https://www.government.se/press-releases/2025/01/government-proposes-measures-to-ensure-that-more-people-with-removal-orders-leave-the-country/
[12] Government Offices of Sweden. (2025, January 28). Government proposes measures to ensure that more people with removal orders leave the country. Government Offices of Sweden. From: https://www.government.se/press-releases/2025/01/government-proposes-measures-to-ensure-that-more-people-with-removal-orders-leave-the-country/
[13] Radio Sweden. (2025, January 14). Proposals to change constitution so that Swedish citizenship can be withdrawn. Radio Sweden. From: https://www.sverigesradio.se/artikel/proposals-to-change-constitution-so-that-swedish-citizenship-can-be-withdrawn
[14] Reuters. (2025, December 5). Sweden wants to strip organised crime leaders of citizenship. Reuters. From: https://www.reuters.com/world/sweden-wants-strip-organised-crime-leaders-citizenship-2025-12-05/
[15] Swedish Parliament. (2026, May 20). Riksdagsbeslut 20 maj. Sveriges Riksdag. From: https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/utskick-bik/2026/maj/20/riksdagsbeslut-20-maj/
[16] Reuters. (2025, January 15). Sweden seeks to change constitution to be able to revoke citizenships. Reuters. From: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sweden-seeks-change-constitution-be-able-revoke-citizenships-2025-01-15/
[17] Lindqvist, E. (2025, December 6). Swedish Government Proposes Stripping Citizenship from Gang Leaders. Nordics Today. From: https://nordicstoday.com/article/swedish-government-proposes-stripping-citizenship-gang-leaders
[18] Swedish Parliament. (2026, June 9). Permanent residence permits to be abolished. Sveriges Riksdag. From: https://www.riksdagen.se/en/news/articles/2026/jun/9/permanent-residence-permits-to-be-abolished_cmsc5d86c7b-fecc-4799-9e89-e63592d6c6bfen/
[19] Government Offices of Sweden. (2025, September 26). Ändring av permanent uppehållstillstånd för vissa utlänningar, SOU 2025:99. Government Offices of Sweden. From: https://www.regeringen.se/rattsliga-dokument/statens-offentliga-utredningar/2025/09/sou-202599/
[20] The Swedish Migration Agency. (2026, April 29). How have migration regulations changed? Migrationsverket. From: https://www.migrationsverket.se/en/about-the-swedish-migration-agency/the-swedish-migration-agency-answers/2026/2026-04-29-how-have-migration-regulations-changed.html
[21] Swedish Refugee Law Center. (2025, June 20). Overview of the main changes since the previous report update. AIDA. From: https://asylumineurope.org/reports/country/sweden/overview-main-changes-previous-report-update/
[22] Nystrom, V. (2025, July 25). «It is very frustrating for us, lawyers who work in this field and are really compassionate about migration»: in Sweden, a legislative proposal is about to restrict legal aid. Europian Insights. From: https://www.vuesdeurope.eu/en/it-is-very-frustrating-for-us-lawyers-who-work-in-this-field-and-are-really-compassionate-about-migration-in-sweden-a-legislative-proposal-is-about-to-restrict-legal-aid/
[23] Swedish Migration Agency. (2026, July 9). Several legislative changes in the field of migration from 12 July. Swedish Migration Agency. From: https://www.migrationsverket.se/en/news-archive/news/2026-07-09-several-legislative-changes-in-the-field-of-migration-from-12-july.html
[24] Nkulu Kalengayi, F., & Baroudi, M., & Hurtig, A. K. (2024). Prevalence of perceived discrimination, determinants and associations with self-rated general and sexual health, healthcare utilization and self-perceived integration: a cross-sectional survey of migrants in Sweden. BMC Public Health, 24, 699. From: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18160-2
[25] Council of Europe. (2020, December 8). News of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI). Council of Europe. From: https://www.coe.int/en/web/european-commission-against-racism-and-intolerance/-/sweden-should-enable-ombuds-institutions-to-investigate-discrimination-by-public-authorities-and-improve-integration-support-for-migrant-women
[26] The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance., & Council of Europe. (2025, June 17). ECRI Report on Sweden. Council of Europe. From: https://rm.coe.int/sixth-report-on-sweden/1680b6635a
[27] Civil Rights Defenders. (2022, October 24). The Tidö Agreement Review. Civil Rights Defenders. From: https://crd.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Analysis-of-the-Tido-Agreement_Civil-Rights-Defenders_221024.pdf
[28] Picum. (2024, May 29). “Utterly inhumane” – civil society reacts to Swedish plan to oblige teachers, doctors to denounce undocumented people. Picum. From: https://picum.org/blog/utterly-inhumane-civil-society-reacts-to-swedish-plan-to-oblige-teachers-doctors-to-denounce-undocumented-people/
[29] Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor. (2023, April 1). Before the Human Rights Council: Euro-Med Monitor Urges Denmark and Sweden to End Discrimination Against Migrants. Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor. From: https://euromedmonitor.org/ar/article/5584
