2026-03-192025/26:MJU15 · p.3MJUEnvironment & agriculture
Relocation and euthanasia of dogs
Rehoming and euthanasia of dogs under a dog-ownership ban
What's at stake: The question affects how quickly and in what way dogs belonging to banned owners are rehomed or put down, and who — the owner or the county board — decides the dog's future.
Case texts and AI reasoning are AI-translated from the Swedish originals; the Swedish text is authoritative.
What the vote decides
Parliament decides whether an owner banned from keeping dogs may rehome the dog themselves within a set period, or whether the county administrative board should decide on rehoming and clearer rules should govern how euthanasia decisions are carried out.
Yes Yes — the committee proposal
The committee backs the government's proposal and rejects the motions: an owner subject to a dog ban should be allowed to arrange the transfer of the dog themselves within a set period, unless the county board decides to seize the dog, in line with the equivalent rule in the Animal Welfare Act.
No No — the reservations
Reservation 3 (MP)
Reservation (the Green Party): the county administrative board, not the owner, should decide where the dog goes after a ban, out of consideration for the dog's welfare; clearer legal rules are also needed for how police euthanasia decisions are carried out (e.g. a requirement for veterinary involvement), and the vague ground of "other special reasons" for euthanizing seized dogs should be clarified.
Summarised from the committee report. Party labels in the summary come from the report, not from the vote.
What do the votes mean here?
Yes The committee proposal: rejecting the motions (keeping things as they are).
No Backing the counter-proposal: reservation 3 by MP.
Abstain The party marks a position of its own that is not one of the two final alternatives.
What each plan points to — and how the party voted
For each party: the vote its own election manifesto and party programme point to in this case, next to how the party actually voted. A plan can only point to Yes or No; a party can also abstain.
| Plan | Vote | Confidence | Evidence | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| V | No | Yes 17/0/0/5 | departs from the plan | confidence: low | not addressed |
| S | No | Yes 93/0/0/13 | departs from the plan | confidence: low | not addressed |
| MP | No | No 0/13/0/5 | follows the plan | confidence: medium | not addressed |
| C | Yes | Yes 20/0/1/3 | follows the plan | confidence: low | derived |
| L | No | Yes 12/0/0/4 | departs from the plan | confidence: low | not addressed |
| KD | No | Yes 14/0/0/5 | departs from the plan | confidence: low | derived |
| M | Yes | Yes 60/0/0/8 | follows the plan | confidence: low | not addressed |
| SD | No | Yes 61/0/0/10 | departs from the plan | confidence: medium | not addressed |
Broke with the party line
| CAnders W Jonsson (C, Gävleborgs län) | Abstain — party line: Yes |
MPs whose vote differs from their party's majority position in this division. Marked with a dark ring in the chamber view.
Committee proposal
The Riksdag rejects the motion 2025/26:3858 by Rebecka Le Moine et al. (MP) motions 2-4.
Original (Swedish)
Riksdagen avslår motion 2025/26:3858 av Rebecka Le Moine m.fl. (MP) yrkandena 2-4.
Riksdag decision: The county administrative boards shall be given more tools to exercise supervision over dogs to prevent and stop dogs from causing damage. For example, the county administrative boards shall gain access to residences and other spaces for the supervision and shall to a greater extent be able to decide on immediate seizures. The Riksdag approved the government's proposal, which also means that the Police Authority, in certain cases, can decide on euthanasia of animals that have been seized under the Animal Welfare Act. The new regulations take effect on May 1, 2026.
Counter-proposals
- The counter-proposal wants county administrative boards to decide dog placement and clearer legal rules for police euthanasia decisions with veterinary contact requirements. (MP) — Reservation 3
Plan vs actual vote
Every party, in chamber order: what its own plan pointed to, how it voted, and the reasoning behind both. Highlighted rows are where the two differ — but a vote that follows the plan is a result too, so the reasoning is there for every party.
The plan does not address dog bans, but establishes that all animal husbandry shall be based on the fact that animals are sentient beings that shall live good lives.
Plan documents: party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The plan does not address dog bans, but establishes that all animal husbandry shall be based on the fact that animals are sentient beings that shall live good lives. That principle speaks for the authority, not the owner who has been issued a ban, deciding where the dog ends up. The plan's requirement for procedural fairness also supports clearer rules for how euthanasia decisions are executed.
Original (Swedish)
Planen behandlar inte hundförbud, men slår fast att all djurhållning ska utgå från att djur är kännande varelser som ska leva goda liv. Den principen talar för att myndigheten, och inte den ägare som fått förbud, avgör var hunden hamnar. Planens krav på rättssäkerhet stödjer också tydligare regler för hur avlivningsbeslut verkställs.
- the animal's best interests decidedecisive»All djurhållning ska utgå från att djur är kännande« (party programme ↗)“All animal husbandry shall be based on the fact that animals are sentient”
- procedurally fair authority decisions»Utvecklingen av ett rättsväsende byggt på rättssäkerhet är viktig« (party programme ↗)“Development of a legal system built on procedural fairness is important”
The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.
The documents say nothing about animal husbandry, dog bans or euthanasia decisions.
Plan documents: party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The documents say nothing about animal husbandry, dog bans or euthanasia decisions. The closest principle is the plan's requirement for a legal system based on clear and foreseeable rules and that authorities — not private interests — shall have authority over matters society has taken responsibility for. That principle argues for the regional county administrative board deciding the dog's placement and that grounds for euthanasia are clarified.
Original (Swedish)
Dokumenten säger ingenting om djurhållning, hundförbud eller avlivningsbeslut. Närmast liggande princip är planens krav på en rättsordning som bygger på tydliga och förutsebara regler och på att myndigheterna – inte enskilda intressen – ska ha rådighet i frågor samhället tagit ansvar för. Den principen talar för att länsstyrelsen avgör hundens placering och att grunderna för avlivning preciseras.
- foreseeable and equal rulesdecisive»En rättsordning som bygger på allas likhet inför lagen.« (party programme ↗)“A legal system based on equality before the law for all.”
- principles of the rule of law»Slå vakt om rättsstatens principer.« (party programme ↗)“Safeguard the principles of the rule of law.”
- lawful exercise of authority»Kriminalpolitik byggd på evidens, effektivitet och rättssäkerhet.« (party programme ↗)“Criminal policy built on evidence, efficiency and legal certainty.”
The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.
The plan proceeds from the fact that animals are sentient beings with an intrinsic value and their own rights, and that the party shall be a voice for those who cannot make their voices heard.
Plan documents: party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The plan proceeds from the fact that animals are sentient beings with an intrinsic value and their own rights, and that the party shall be a voice for those who cannot make their voices heard. That allowing the county board to decide the dog's future outcome based on the animal's best, instead of the owner who received a dog ban, follows from that principle. The plan also requires that animals are not only protected against suffering, and that rules shall be legally certain and clear.
Original (Swedish)
Planen utgår från att djur är kännande varelser med ett egenvärde och egna rättigheter, och att partiet ska vara en röst för dem som inte kan göra sina röster hörda. Att låta länsstyrelsen avgöra hundens fortsatta öde utifrån djurets bästa, i stället för ägaren som fått hundförbud, följer av den principen. Planen kräver också att djur inte bara skyddas mot lidande, och att regler ska vara rättssäkra och tydliga.
- animals' intrinsic value and rightsdecisive»kännande varelser med ett egenvärde och med egna rättigheter. De får inte behandlas« (party programme ↗)“sentient beings with an intrinsic value and their own rights. They shall not be treated”
- voice for animals»Vi vill vara en röst för dem som inte kan göra sina röster hörda - även för djuren.« (party programme ↗)“We want to be a voice for those who cannot make their voices heard — also for animals.”
- protection against suffering»Miljöpartiet anser att djur inte bara ska skyddas mot lidande, utan även ges« (party programme ↗)“The Green Party believes that animals shall not only be protected against suffering, but also given”
- legally certain rules»prövas noggrant utifrån rättssäkerhet och grundläggande fri- och rättigheter.« (party programme ↗)“be tested carefully on the basis of legal certainty and fundamental freedoms and rights.”
The plan sets ownership and individual responsibility at the centre and wants the state to avoid over-regulating people's lives.
Plan documents: party programme · 2022 manifesto
Reasoning and quotes
The plan sets ownership and individual responsibility at the centre and wants the state to avoid over-regulating people's lives. Moving the decision about where the dog ends up from the owner to the county administrative board goes in the opposite direction. The plan's responsibility for animals points the other way, so certainty is low.
Original (Swedish)
Planen sätter äganderätten och den enskildes eget ansvar i centrum och vill att staten undviker att genomreglera människors liv. Att flytta beslutet om var hunden hamnar från ägaren till länsstyrelsen går i motsatt riktning. Planens ansvar för djuren talar åt andra hållet, varför säkerheten är låg.
- ownership and self-responsibilitydecisive»Äganderätten är central för ett samhälle där människor kan förverkliga sig själva och sina drömmar.« (party programme ↗)“Ownership is central to a society where people can realise themselves and their dreams.”
- the state shall not over-regulate»Staten är till för människan, inte tvärtom.« (party programme ↗)“The state is for people, not the other way around.”
- people decide more themselves»Decentralisera mera. Människor ska få bestämma mer själva, och politiska beslut ska fattas nära dem som berörs.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Decentralise more. People shall get to decide more themselves, and political decisions shall be taken close to those affected.”
- responsibility for animals' wellbeing»Människan har ett särskilt ansvar att agera så att andra levande varelser också kan fortleva.« (party programme ↗)“Humans have a special responsibility to act so that other living creatures can also continue to exist.”
The plan establishes that all animal husbandry must guarantee animals a dignified life and a decent death and that control of regulatory compliance must be strengthened.
Plan documents: party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The plan establishes that all animal husbandry must guarantee animals a dignified life and a decent death and that control of regulatory compliance must be strengthened. That the county administrative board decides the dog's placement after a dog ban, and that the rules for euthanasia are made clearer, follow from the animal welfare commitment and from the requirement for legally secure rules.
Original (Swedish)
Planen slår fast att all djurhållning måste garantera djuren ett värdigt liv och en anständig död och att kontrollen av regelefterlevnaden måste skärpas. Att länsstyrelsen avgör hundens placering efter ett hundförbud, och att reglerna för avlivning görs tydligare, följer av djurskyddsåtagandet och av kravet på rättssäkra regler.
- dignified animal husbandrydecisive»All djurhållning måste garantera djuren ett värdigt liv och en anständig död.« (party programme ↗)“All animal husbandry must guarantee animals a dignified life and a decent death.”
- animal husbandry as a measure of civilization»Hur vi hanterar våra djur är ett mått på vår civilisation och en förutsättning för en god« (party programme ↗)“How we treat our animals is a measure of our civilization and a prerequisite for a good”
- strengthened control»Kontrollen av att nationella lagar och EU-regler efterlevs måste skärpas.« (party programme ↗)“Control of compliance with national laws and EU regulations must be strengthened.”
- clear and legally secure rules»Rättssäkerheten och skyddet för de medborgerliga fri- och rättigheterna behöver förstärkas.« (party programme ↗)“Legal security and protection of civil liberties and rights need to be strengthened.”
The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.
The plan places on humans a responsibility to care for animals and requires that stress, pain and injury are avoided as far as possible and that unnecessary suffering does not occur.
Plan documents: party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The plan places on humans a responsibility to care for animals and requires that stress, pain and injury are avoided as far as possible and that unnecessary suffering does not occur. When an owner has received a dog ban, the conditions for themselves to fulfil that responsibility have failed, which speaks for the county administrative board deciding the dog's placement based on the animal's best interests. The plan's requirement for clear legislation also carries the demand for clearer rules for how euthanasia decisions are carried out.
Original (Swedish)
Planen ålägger människan ett förvaltaransvar för djuren och kräver att stress, smärta och skador så långt möjligt undviks och att onödigt lidande inte förekommer. När en ägare har fått hundförbud har förutsättningarna för att själv fullgöra det ansvaret brustit, vilket talar för att länsstyrelsen avgör hundens placering utifrån djurets bästa. Planens krav på tydlig lagstiftning bär också kravet på klarare regler för hur avlivningsbeslut verkställs.
- stewardship of animalsdecisive»Människan har ett ansvar att värna andra levande varelser.« (party programme ↗)“Humans have a responsibility to care for other living creatures.”
- avoid suffering in animals»är möjligt, undvika stress, smärta och skador för djuren« (party programme ↗)“is possible, avoid stress, pain and injury for animals”
- no unnecessary suffering»Onödigt lidande ska inte förekomma« (party programme ↗)“Unnecessary suffering shall not occur”
- clear and predictable rules»innefatta snabba och förutsägbara reaktioner som är förankrade i en human och tydlig« (party programme ↗)“include swift and predictable reactions that are anchored in a humane and clear”
The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.
The plan does not address dog bans or euthanasia decisions.
Plan documents: party programme · 2022 manifesto
Reasoning and quotes
The plan does not address dog bans or euthanasia decisions. The closest principle is that the public should only in exceptional cases take over individuals' property and never act lightly against individuals' ownership, which speaks against the county administrative board deciding the dog's fate instead of the owner. The plan also values animal husbandry as part of many people's lives.
Original (Swedish)
Planen behandlar inte hundförbud eller avlivningsbeslut. Närmast liggande princip är att det offentliga bara i undantagsfall ska ta över enskildas egendom och aldrig agera lättvindigt mot enskildas ägande, vilket talar emot att länsstyrelsen i stället för ägaren avgör hundens öde. Planen värnar också djurhållningen som en del av många människors liv.
- ownership rights against government takeoverdecisive»Stat och kommun ska endast i undantagsfall få ta över enskildas egendom« (party programme ↗)“State and municipality shall only in exceptional cases be allowed to take over individuals' property”
- value animal husbandry»Jakt och djurhållning är för många människor en viktig del av livet, kanske framför allt för de som bor utanför storstadsregionerna« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Hunting and animal husbandry are for many people an important part of life, perhaps especially for those living outside the metropolitan regions”
- private stewardship responsibility»Människan förvaltar naturen.« (party programme ↗)“Man stewards nature.”
The counter-proposal wants the county administrative board, not the owner, to decide where the dog ends up after a dog ban and demands clearer rules for euthanasia decisions, out of consideration for the animal's best interest.
Plan documents: 2022 manifesto · party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The counter-proposal wants the county administrative board, not the owner, to decide where the dog ends up after a dog ban and demands clearer rules for euthanasia decisions, out of consideration for the animal's best interest. The plan establishes that the legal status of animals should be strengthened and that crimes against animals should have greater consequences, and that no animals shall be subjected to unnecessary suffering. The agency deciding placement follows from that animal welfare perspective.
Original (Swedish)
Motförslaget vill att länsstyrelsen, inte ägaren, avgör var hunden hamnar efter ett hundförbud och kräver tydligare regler för avlivningsbeslut, av hänsyn till djurets bästa. Planen slår fast att djurens rättsliga ställning ska stärkas och att lagbrott mot djur ska få större konsekvenser, samt att inga djur ska utsättas för onödigt lidande. Att myndigheten avgör placeringen följer av det djurskyddsperspektivet.
- strengthened legal status for animalsdecisive»Djurens rättsliga ställning ska stärkas och lagbrott ska få större konsekvenser.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“The legal status of animals should be strengthened and crimes should have greater consequences.”
- strengthened animal protection»Stärka djurs rättsliga skydd och status« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Strengthen the legal protection and status of animals”
- no unnecessary animal suffering»efter ett samhälle där inga djur utsätts för onödigt lidande.« (party programme ↗)“after a society where no animals are subjected to unnecessary suffering.”
- stricter agency enforcement for animals»Sverigedemokraterna vill också skapa en särskild djurskyddspolis med specialkompetens i hanterandet av brott mot djur.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Sweden Democrats also want to create a special animal protection police with special expertise in handling crimes against animals.”
The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.
Share and embed
Sources and documents
- The committee report on riksdagen.se (2025/26:MJU15)
- Committee report full text (HD01MJU15)
- Per-MP voting data (API)
- Case status (API)
Documents under consideration
- Motion 2025/26:2706 — Skärpta regler för kamphundsraser av Mikael Oscarsson (KD)
- Motion 2025/26:3733 — Utgiftsområde 23 Areella näringar, landsbygd och livsmedel av Åsa Westlund m.fl. (S)
- Motion 2025/26:3858 — med anledning av prop. 2025/26:57 Hund under kontroll av Rebecka Le Moine m.fl. (MP)
- Motion 2025/26:3859 — med anledning av prop. 2025/26:57 Hund under kontroll av Stina Larsson m.fl. (C)
- Proposition 2025/26:57 — Hund under kontroll
Source: The Swedish Parliament