2025-05-152024/25:SfU19 · p.4SfUMigration & social insurance
Direction of Family Policy
The direction of economic family policy
What's at stake: How parental insurance and other family benefits are designed affects the finances of families with children during a period of high inflation, and the extent to which parental leave can be shared equally and adapted to different family constellations.
Case texts and AI reasoning are AI-translated from the Swedish originals; the Swedish text is authoritative.
What the vote decides
The question is about the overall direction of economic family policy - whether current levels of benefits and the ongoing reform work to increase flexibility in parental insurance are sufficient, or whether parental insurance should be fundamentally reviewed to better fit modern family constellations and equal parenting.
Yes Yes — the committee proposal
The committee notes that the base amount and hourly wages have risen, increasing the funds allocated to parental benefit, and that several reforms have already been carried out to increase flexibility in parental insurance - including more double days and the option to transfer parental-benefit days to another adult in the child's life - in order to make it easier for different family constellations to use parental benefit. Against that background, the committee finds overall no reason to now raise or index benefits and allowances or to review economic family policy, and the motions are rejected.
No No — the reservations
Reservation 7 (C)
The reservation (C) wants a modern, liberal family policy based on the best interests of the child and equal, fair terms for all parents. It holds that parental insurance should be reviewed and adapted to a modern society, working life and different family constellations, and designed to reward an equal division of parental-benefit days.
Summarised from the committee report. Party labels in the summary come from the report, not from the vote.
V–
S–
MP–
C–
L–
KD–
M–
SD–
YesNoAbstainAbsent
What do the votes mean here?
Yes The committee proposal: rejecting the motions (keeping things as they are).
No Backing the counter-proposal: reservation 7 by C.
Abstain The party marks a position of its own that is not one of the two final alternatives.
The plan's stance / Actual vote
AI
Vote
Confidence
Evidence
V
–
Abstain 0/0/19/5
S
–
Abstain 2/0/90/14
MP
–
Abstain 0/0/15/3
Cown reservation
–
No 0/20/0/4
L
–
Yes 12/0/0/4
KD
–
Yes 16/0/0/3
M
–
Yes 59/0/0/9
SD
–
Yes 62/0/0/10
Broke with the party line
SLinus Sköld(S, Norrbottens län)
Yes — party line: Abstain
SÅsa Eriksson(S, Västmanlands län)
Yes — party line: Abstain
MPs whose vote differs from their party's majority position in this division. Marked with a dark ring in the chamber view.
Committee proposal
Parliament rejects the motions
2024/25:255 by Josef Fransson (SD),
2024/25:347 by Markus Kallifatides (S) demands 2-4,
2024/25:730 by Yasmine Bladelius and Hanna Westerén (both S),
2024/25:1812 by Patrik Lundqvist et al. (S),
2024/25:1926 by Isabell Mixter et al. (V) demands 1-3, 7 and 11,
2024/25:2127 by Sanna Backeskog et al. (S),
2024/25:2131 by Sanna Backeskog et al. (S),
2024/25:2338 by Jamal El-Haj (-) demands 1 and 2,
2024/25:2618 by Rasmus Ling et al. (MP) demand 22,
2024/25:2623 by Katarina Luhr et al. (MP) demand 12,
2024/25:2637 by Märta Stenevi et al. (MP) demands 1-3,
2024/25:3028 by Anders Ygeman et al. (S) demand 2,
2024/25:3052 by Annika Hirvonen et al. (MP) demands 12-15, 17 and 18, and
2024/25:3158 by Martina Johansson et al. (C) demand 30.
Original (Swedish)
Riksdagen avslår motionerna
2024/25:255 av Josef Fransson (SD),
2024/25:347 av Markus Kallifatides (S) yrkandena 2-4,
2024/25:730 av Yasmine Bladelius och Hanna Westerén (båda S),
2024/25:1812 av Patrik Lundqvist m.fl. (S),
2024/25:1926 av Isabell Mixter m.fl. (V) yrkandena 1-3, 7 och 11,
2024/25:2127 av Sanna Backeskog m.fl. (S),
2024/25:2131 av Sanna Backeskog m.fl. (S),
2024/25:2338 av Jamal El-Haj (-) yrkandena 1 och 2,
2024/25:2618 av Rasmus Ling m.fl. (MP) yrkande 22,
2024/25:2623 av Katarina Luhr m.fl. (MP) yrkande 12,
2024/25:2637 av Märta Stenevi m.fl. (MP) yrkandena 1-3,
2024/25:3028 av Anders Ygeman m.fl. (S) yrkande 2,
2024/25:3052 av Annika Hirvonen m.fl. (MP) yrkandena 12-15, 17 och 18 samt
2024/25:3158 av Martina Johansson m.fl. (C) yrkande 30.
Riksdag decision: The government has submitted a dispatch to parliament on its assessment and actions taken based on the National Audit Office's report on the effectiveness of the housing allowance. The National Audit Office's overall conclusion is that the housing allowance is not effectively designed in relation to its housing policy purpose, as it has not consistently and clearly focused on the opportunities to demand good and sufficiently spacious housing. The government is therefore recommended to, among other things, review the structure of the housing allowance for better goal achievement, and regularly follow up on goal achievement.
Parliament welcomes the National Audit Office's audit and agrees with the government that the report can serve as a basis for future development of the housing allowance. Parliament further considers that the work the government presents to increase effectiveness so that the housing allowance can be granted with a correct amount from the beginning is sufficient.
Parliament laid the dispatch on file, which means the matter was closed.
Moreover, parliament rejected approximately 110 proposals in motions from the general motion period of 2024 on economic family policy, citing, among other things, ongoing work. The motions address, among other things, parental insurance, child allowance, maintenance support and housing allowance.
Counter-proposals
The counter-proposal wants parental insurance to be reviewed and adapted to modern family constellations and to reward equal uptake. (C) — Reservation 7