The whole term
Analysis
The whole term in one place: where the parties’ plans and votes part, what that would have cost, who votes with whom — and last the chamber and its members, straight from the voting data.
By policy area
Where do parties follow their plan — and where not?
Share of votes that followed the party's own plan, broken down by policy area. Parties sit at very different levels overall, so the columns differ sharply in tone — read each against that party’s own average in the footer row, and the “Biggest swings” table below for where a party varies most against itself.
| Policy area | V | S | MP | C | L | KD | M | SD | n |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health & social services | 62% | 53% | 68% | 47% | 15% | 11% | 35% | 29% | 278 |
| Environment & agriculture | 53% | 46% | 66% | 54% | 24% | 20% | 44% | 50% | 241 |
| Justice | 63% | 53% | 58% | 38% | 22% | 25% | 36% | 44% | 223 |
| Education | 62% | 63% | 62% | 54% | 21% | 24% | 47% | 40% | 217 |
| Civil law & housing | 55% | 51% | 54% | 53% | 31% | 25% | 54% | 51% | 202 |
| Business & energy | 69% | 62% | 61% | 54% | 38% | 26% | 54% | 55% | 196 |
| Transport & infrastructure | 53% | 63% | 51% | 67% | 30% | 26% | 56% | 56% | 160 |
| Constitution | 59% | 42% | 49% | 49% | 25% | 18% | 48% | 46% | 157 |
| Migration & social insurance | 78% | 62% | 81% | 54% | 32% | 41% | 63% | 70% | 152 |
| Foreign affairs | 64% | 61% | 69% | 50% | 20% | 22% | 51% | 68% | 131 |
| Defence | 58% | 52% | 63% | 48% | 20% | 17% | 33% | 31% | 126 |
| Culture | 39% | 42% | 59% | 37% | 10% | 8% | 51% | 36% | 119 |
| Taxation | 70% | 61% | 64% | 64% | 34% | 35% | 42% | 54% | 117 |
| Labour market | 49% | 68% | 58% | 61% | 28% | 25% | 48% | 58% | 116 |
| Economy & finance | 69% | 66% | 60% | 53% | 41% | 39% | 63% | 55% | 104 |
| Party average | 60% | 55% | 61% | 51% | 25% | 23% | 47% | 48% | 18011 |
The denominator is votes where the party took a side (Ja or Nej) — the same gate as the published divergence figure. Abstentions are not counted as misses: a p6 position can only resolve to Ja or Nej, so an area attracting many abstentions would otherwise look like one where parties abandon their plan. They are reported separately in the cell description instead. n = number of divisions in the area.
Colour is the cell’s own figure on a fixed scale: red = 0%, light green = 50%, green = 100%. The same figure gets the same colour everywhere, so columns can be compared directly. How an area sits against the party’s own average is in the cell’s tooltip and in the table below.
Largest swings per party
The area where each party deviates furthest above and below its own average.
| Follows the plan most | Follows the plan least | |
|---|---|---|
| VVänsterpartiet | Migration & social insurance +18 pp 78% | Culture −21 pp 39% |
| SSocialdemokraterna | Labour market +13 pp 68% | Constitution −14 pp 42% |
| MPMiljöpartiet | Migration & social insurance +19 pp 81% | Constitution −12 pp 49% |
| CCenterpartiet | Transport & infrastructure +16 pp 67% | Culture −14 pp 37% |
| LLiberalerna | Economy & finance +16 pp 41% | Culture −15 pp 10% |
| KDKristdemokraterna | Migration & social insurance +18 pp 41% | Culture −15 pp 8% |
| MModeraterna | Migration & social insurance +15 pp 63% | Defence −14 pp 33% |
| SDSverigedemokraterna | Migration & social insurance +21 pp 70% | Health & social services −19 pp 29% |
Areas with fewer than 40 votes for that party are excluded from the ranking. The smallest cell in this run holds 72 votes, so nothing is actually filtered out.
Counterfactual outcome
Decisions that would have gone the other way
Divisions whose outcome would not have survived the parties voting their explicit commitments. Only parties whose own plan took a position outright (evidence tier "explicit commitment") are moved, and only where the party voted Ja or Nej. Every other party keeps its real seat counts, including its own dissenters. A party that abstained stays where it stood — an abstention is a floor tactic the plan was never asked to express.
Direction: 324 decisions go from Ja to Nej, 0 from Nej to Ja. A further 5 divisions end tied and are counted in neither direction — the Riksdag settles a tie by lot.
Which parties carry the reversal?
| Votes moved | Reversed the decision | Decisive alone | |
|---|---|---|---|
| LLiberalerna | 458 | 184 | 14 |
| MModeraterna | 245 | 176 | 15 |
| SDSverigedemokraterna | 224 | 168 | 24 |
| KDKristdemokraterna | 303 | 142 | 5 |
| VVänsterpartiet | 145 | 51 | 2 |
| CCenterpartiet | 109 | 50 | 1 |
| MPMiljöpartiet | 135 | 44 | 1 |
| SSocialdemokraterna | 81 | 41 | 4 |
One decision can be carried by several parties at once, so the "reversed the decision" column sums to more than the number of reversals. The governing parties dominate for the same reason as everywhere else in this measurement: they are read against their own manifestos, not against Tidöavtalet.
The divisions (324)
| 2026-06-17 | Om återtagandet av eftersatt järnvägsunderhåll | Transport & infrastructure | MSD | Ja → Nej |
| 2026-06-17 | Vägbelysningsnätet | Transport & infrastructure | Malone | Ja → Nej |
| 2026-06-09 | Riksrevisionens rapport om tillämpningen av det finanspolitiska ramverket 2025 | Economy & finance | SSD | Ja → Nej |
| 2026-06-09 | Subsidiaritetsprövning av förslag till förordning om den 28:e ordningens bolagsregelverk | Civil law & housing | SDalone | Ja → Nej |
| 2026-06-09 | Sanktioner | Foreign affairs | LSD | Ja → Nej |
| 2026-06-09 | Ekonomiska konsekvenser | Education | KDalone | Ja → Nej |
| 2026-06-03 | Straff och sanktionsavgifter | Environment & agriculture | SDalone | Ja → Nej |
| 2026-05-27 | Jämställdhet | Foreign affairs | KDLS | Ja → Nej |
| 2026-05-20 | Ett starkt lokalsamhälle och en effektiv landsbygdspolitik | Business & energy | KDL | Ja → Nej |
| 2026-05-20 | Offentlig och kommersiell service | Business & energy | SDalone | Ja → Nej |
| 2026-05-20 | Kompetensförsörjning | Health & social services | CKDMP | Ja → Nej |
| 2026-05-20 | Civilsamhällets organisationer | Business & energy | Lalone | Ja → Nej |
Showing the 12 most recent of 324. See all in the case browser →
This is arithmetic, not a prediction. It shows what the chamber's numbers would have been had every explicit commitment been kept — not what would have happened politically. Had the parties voted differently, the committee would likely have written a different proposal, other parties would have reacted, and the negotiations would have looked different. Read the rows as questions about individual commitments, not as an alternative term of parliament.
Alignment
Who votes with whom?
Actual votes
| V | S | MP | C | L | KD | M | SD | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| V | – | 41% | 55% | 34% | 42% | 42% | 42% | 29% |
| S | 41% | – | 44% | 39% | 50% | 49% | 50% | 36% |
| MP | 55% | 44% | – | 39% | 37% | 37% | 37% | 27% |
| C | 34% | 39% | 39% | – | 50% | 50% | 50% | 42% |
| L | 42% | 50% | 37% | 50% | – | 100% | 100% | 79% |
| KD | 42% | 49% | 37% | 50% | 100% | – | 100% | 79% |
| M | 42% | 50% | 37% | 50% | 100% | 100% | – | 79% |
| SD | 29% | 36% | 27% | 42% | 79% | 79% | 79% | – |
Share of divisions where two parties took the same position (Ja/Nej/Avstår), whole term.
If parties voted their own documents
The same measurement, taken on the position each party's own election manifesto and party programme point at instead of on its vote in the chamber. Cells sit in the same place in both tables — hover a cell for the real figure and the difference.
| V | S | MP | C | L | KD | M | SD | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| V | – | 86% | 94% | 72% | 67% | 66% | 42% | 53% |
| S | 86% | – | 86% | 73% | 75% | 77% | 54% | 64% |
| MP | 94% | 86% | – | 75% | 71% | 69% | 44% | 55% |
| C | 72% | 73% | 75% | – | 83% | 81% | 66% | 69% |
| L | 67% | 75% | 71% | 83% | – | 82% | 69% | 71% |
| KD | 66% | 77% | 69% | 81% | 82% | – | 71% | 78% |
| M | 42% | 54% | 44% | 66% | 69% | 71% | – | 79% |
| SD | 53% | 64% | 55% | 69% | 71% | 78% | 79% | – |
Share of divisions where two parties' document-grounded positions coincided. Corner mark = at least 10 percentage points away from the real table. There is no absence here: every party has a plan for every division, so the denominator is all of them.
The coalition, or the party programme?
Every division pits the committee's proposal (Ja) against a reservation (Nej). Two rival explanations of how a party votes are set against each other: the coalition line — vote with the committee, knowing nothing about the party — and the party programme, which the AI agent reads without ever being told who authored the reservation. The gap between them is the measurement.
What explains the party's vote?
| Coalition line | Party programme | What the programme adds | n | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KD | 100% | 23% | −76.2 pp | 2536 | |
| L | 100% | 25% | −74.2 pp | 2536 | |
| M | 100% | 47% | −52.6 pp | 2536 | |
| SD | 79% | 44% | −35.4 pp | 2536 | |
| C | 50% | 39% | −10.6 pp | 2536 | |
| S | 50% | 48% | −1.8 pp | 2536 | |
| V | 42% | 49% | +6.9 pp | 2536 | |
| MP | 37% | 46% | +8.8 pp | 2536 |
Coalition line = the share of votes hit by the rule "always vote Ja, with the committee". Party programme = how often the party's own plan points to the vote it actually cast. The difference is what the plan adds: zero means it explains nothing beyond coalition position.
M · KD · L — This is now measured without bloc documents: M, KD and L are read against their own manifestos and party programmes, not against the Tidö agreement. That the coalition line accounts for nearly 99% of their votes while their own plans often point elsewhere is therefore not an error in the measurement — it is the measurement. The difference is what the coalition deal carries, not the party programme.
When the coalition outweighs a party’s own documents
Divisions where the party’s own documents explicitly imply voting against the committee — yet it voted Ja anyway. Split by whether the party moved the reservation itself.
| Own reservation | Another party's reservation | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| strict | loose | strict | loose | |
| KD | – – | – – | 209/209 100% | 302/302 100% |
| L | 0/1 0% | 0/1 0% | 348/348 100% | 457/457 100% |
| M | – – | – – | 190/190 100% | 245/245 100% |
| SD | 0/89 0% | 0/92 0% | 199/239 83% | 224/270 83% |
| C | 0/142 0% | 0/158 0% | 89/194 46% | 102/218 47% |
| S | 0/202 0% | 0/219 0% | 63/118 53% | 79/146 54% |
| V | 0/208 0% | 0/214 0% | 135/241 56% | 144/256 56% |
| MP | 0/300 0% | 0/310 0% | 118/297 40% | 133/326 41% |
Where a party moved the reservation itself, it never abandoned it — 0% for every party, at both thresholds. Procedure is decisive where procedure applies. The right-hand column is therefore the real test.
The divisions (1686)
The individual divisions are listed on each party's own page, alongside the rest of that party's figures.
What this does not show
A flag means a document-grounded reading of the party’s programme pointed the other way from its vote. It cannot by itself distinguish "coalition discipline overrode the programme" from "the AI agent misread the programme". That parties never abandon their own reservation (0% in every case below) suggests the measurement captures something real — but individual rows should be read as questions, not verdicts.
The chamber
Government-side defeats (10)
Computed directly from the Riksdag voting data — no AI involved. Source: The Swedish Parliament.
| 2025-05-22 | Organisationsform m.m. | 2024/25:UbU15 p.49 | Nej vs Ja |
| 2025-04-24 | Kontantförbud vid handel med järn- och metallavfall | 2024/25:NU17 p.20 | Nej vs Ja |
| 2025-04-02 | Beteslagstiftning och utevistelse | 2024/25:MJU10 p.12 | Ja vs Nej |
| 2024-11-27 | Ett skuld- och kreditregister | 2024/25:CU5 p.4 | Nej vs Ja |
| 2024-06-12 | Uppräkning av assistansersättning | 2023/24:SoU13 p.7 | Nej vs Ja |
| 2024-05-15 | Översyn av sanktionerna mot terrorism | 2023/24:UU10 p.3 | Nej vs Ja |
| 2023-03-30 | Myndigheternas roll vid tillståndsprocesser | 2022/23:NU13 p.5 | Nej vs Ja |
| 2023-03-09 | Anläggande av våtmarker | 2022/23:MJU7 p.11 | Nej vs Ja |
| 2023-03-08 | Ett långsiktigt hållbart transportsystem | 2022/23:TU4 p.4 | Ja vs Nej |
| 2022-12-21 | Subsidiaritetsprövning av kommissionens förslag till förordning om inrättande av ett krisinstrument för den inre marknaden | 2022/23:NU10 p.1 | Nej vs Ja |
Divisions where M, KD and L shared a line and the chamber decided the other way.