Sweden Democrats Clash with Ruling Coalition Over Permanent Residency

Sweden’s ruling coalition put a plan to retroactively downgrade permanent residency on hold, exposing a widening split with its support partner, the Sweden Democrats, over how far the government can go in rewriting the terms of settled migrants’ status. The most radical versions of the proposal have been placed “on hold” or “on ice” because of legal, financial and political obstacles, with the debate now shifting toward tightening the requirements for Swedish citizenship instead.

At the center of the dispute sits a question with immediate consequences for long-term residents: whether Sweden can take a status issued as permanent residency and convert it into a time-limited permit after the fact, forcing people to re-qualify to remain. Government sources and Swedish media reported on **January 22, 2026** that the proposal to revoke existing permanent residency permits for over **185,000** foreign citizens did not appear in the spring legislative agenda. A government spokesperson said the proposal is “still being analyzed,” describing it as complex and projecting a cost of several billion kronor to reassess such a large volume of cases. EU scrutiny has also sharpened. European Commissioner for Internal Affairs and Migration, Magnus Brunner, said on **February 2, 2026** that he is monitoring the situation and warned the EU is ready to intervene if Sweden’s plan violates the EU Long-Term Residents Directive. Sweden’s domestic argument pits the Sweden Democrats (SD), who want the government to deliver what SD calls the Tidö Agreement, against the Liberal Party, which has raised concerns about retroactivity and legal certainty. That tension has tested political feasibility inside the ruling coalition, even as ministers pursue a broader crackdown on migration policy. Johan Forssell, Swedish Migration Minister, has argued for a “paradigm shift” in migration policy. In late 2025, Forssell said: “We need to keep asylum immigration to Sweden at a low level and then we need to tighten Swedish regulations.” He has also said the government is reviewing referral responses on the permanent residency proposal. Brunner signaled that Brussels will focus on the limits embedded in EU law. “The Commission does not comment on draft proposals. [but] the rights of Long Term Residency should be regulated under the EU’s Long-Term Residents Directive,” he said. The concept driving the political fight is retroactive change. Immigration rules typically apply to future applicants, but the proposal discussed in Sweden would reach backward, altering conditions for people who already secured permanent residency, and re-opening their right to stay. A government inquiry, SOU 2025:99, laid out a proposed “special law” that would automatically revoke permanent residency for certain groups and replace it with a requirement to take one of several steps to remain. It has not been enacted, and the most sweeping versions have been paused. Under the mechanism described in the inquiry, a person who held permanent residency covered by the special law would face a forced choice: apply for Swedish citizenship under stricter criteria, qualify for a new temporary residence permit, or face repatriation or deportation. That design differs from prospective reforms because it would re-test people after they planned their lives around “permanent” status. The stakes rise because permanent residency functions as a foundation for long-term stability. If the state can redesign that foundation retroactively, residents can no longer rely on settled expectations when they sign leases, apply for credit, or make family plans tied to schooling and work. The targeting described in the debate centered on permanent residency linked to asylum pathways. The original proposal targeted approximately **185,000** people, including **16,800** children, who hold permanent residency based on asylum, subsidiary protection, or as relatives of those with such status. Those figures matter politically and administratively because they define the potential scale of case reviews and the number of families who could face new requirements. They also shape the budget implications cited in the government’s decision to leave the plan out of the spring legislative agenda. The inquiry also described exclusions that have featured prominently in political arguments about fairness and legal risk. The proposal generally excludes those who obtained permanent residency through work permits or family ties not related to asylum. Carve-outs carry real-world consequences for mixed-status families, where one person’s permanent residency might be tied to asylum while another’s status is linked to work or a non-asylum family route. Retroactive downgrades can also create uncertainty for dependents, including children, because families often make long-term decisions based on the assumption that permanent residency will remain permanent. Even as the retroactive idea stalled, the government moved on a parallel track that aims at the same concept of “permanence” through citizenship. On **February 9, 2026**, the Swedish government published a draft legislative proposal, a lagrådsremiss, focusing on stricter citizenship requirements instead of the immediate revocation of permanent residency. The shift reframes the debate from taking away existing permanent residency to raising the bar for naturalisation, increasing the pressure on permanent residents to seek citizenship if they want stronger protection against future policy swings. The draft citizenship proposal includes longer residence requirements, financial self-sufficiency and testing. Residency would increase from 5 years to **8 years**, paired with a new requirement to be financially self-sufficient, described as approximately **20,000 SEK/month**. It also introduces mandatory Swedish language and civic knowledge exams. For applicants, that points to a process that may involve gathering documents, tracking timelines and preparing for formal testing as part of proving integration. The Sweden Democrats have pushed for speed and clarity, arguing that the system should link permanence to citizenship. Ludvig Aspling, Sweden Democrat Migration Spokesperson, said: “If you want to live permanently in Sweden, you should become a citizen and meet the requirements for it.” Legal constraints remain central to whether any retroactive residency change can advance. The Liberal Party’s concern about legal certainty reflects the broader argument that residents must be able to rely on government decisions, especially when those decisions carry the label “permanent.” EU rules add another layer. Brunner pointed specifically to the EU Long-Term Residents Directive, which limits the grounds for revoking status to fraud or serious security threats, setting boundaries that Sweden must respect if it wants to avoid conflict with EU oversight. Administrative complexity also shapes what becomes possible. The government spokesperson’s reference to a projected cost of several billion kronor to reassess so many cases underlines the practical challenge of implementing a large-scale review without overwhelming agencies or creating long processing delays. For individuals, the consequences of uncertainty extend beyond immigration paperwork. Predictable status can influence whether banks offer mortgages, landlords sign long leases, and lenders extend credit on normal terms, because permanent residency often signals that a borrower or tenant can remain in the country. Employers also watch the policy direction closely, particularly in recruitment and retention. Legal experts and HR firms, including KPMG and Jobbatical, have warned that sharp shifts in the stability of residency may discourage international talent from remaining in Sweden if the path to security becomes more volatile. Humanitarian organizations have highlighted a different impact. Groups like the Swedish Red Cross have raised alarms about the mental health effect on refugees and children who believed their status was secure, as debates about retroactive downgrades amplify anxiety in communities that already carry trauma from displacement. Although the discussion centers on Sweden, it has drawn attention from readers beyond Europe, including in the USA, where “green card” debates often focus on what “permanent” status means in practice. No official statements have been issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regarding Sweden’s domestic policy, leaving the public record anchored in Swedish and EU comments. Residents and employers looking for authoritative updates can track developments through official channels rather than political rumor. The Swedish government posts announcements and documents through the [Swedish Government (Regeringen) Newsroom](https://www.regeringen.se/pressmeddelanden/), while the [Swedish Migration Agency (Migrationsverket)](https://www.migrationsverket.se/English/About-the-Migration-Agency/For-press/News-archive.html) maintains a news archive for press updates. At the EU level, the European Commission’s [Migration and Home Affairs](https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/index_en) pages provide information relevant to long-term residence rules and the framework Brunner cited as he monitored Sweden’s debate. Following the policy debate also requires separating draft proposals, inquiries such as an SOU, and enacted law. The controversy over retroactive change illustrates why those distinctions matter: an inquiry can describe far-reaching options, while political and legal constraints can still keep them “on hold” for months. For now, Sweden’s governing parties have paused the most sweeping permanent residency rollback, but the Sweden Democrats have kept up pressure for a model that ties permanence more tightly to citizenship, with Aspling’s message unchanged: “If you want to live permanently in Sweden, you should become a citizen and meet the requirements for it.”