What's at stake: The decision affects how much profit private welfare providers can extract and how easily they can establish themselves, which matters for how school, healthcare and social-care resources are used and for efforts against disreputable operators and welfare-related crime.
Case texts and AI reasoning are AI-translated from the Swedish originals; the Swedish text is authoritative.
What the vote decides
The question is whether Parliament should now tighten the rules on profit-taking and the right of establishment for private providers in schools, healthcare and social care and set up a dedicated welfare inquiry, or whether it should await ongoing inquiry and preparatory work.
Yes Yes — the committee proposal
The committee notes that the right of establishment is already limited for tax-funded activities and requires contracts, permits or special conditions for private providers, that the inquiry on profit in schools has recently submitted its final report, now being prepared within the Government Offices, and that extensive work is already under way to improve municipalities' and regions' oversight of private providers against welfare-related crime, disreputable operators and corruption; against that background, the committee sees no reason for further measures at this time and rejects the motions.
No No — the reservations
Reservation 9 (S, MP)
The reservation holds that privatization and deregulation have increased inequality in healthcare and segregation in schools, and that resources meant for welfare instead go to large profit withdrawals or are moved abroad, while some residential care homes are run by criminals; it wants a welfare inquiry set up to examine how democratic control over welfare can be regained, how profit-driven operations can be reduced and a profit ban introduced in preschool, school and Swedish-for-immigrants courses, how non-profit alternatives can be developed, and a new law on need-based establishment rights to replace the current free-choice system, along with AI technology and a dedicated inquiry to combat welfare-related crime.
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 9 by S, MP.
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 0/0/15/7
Sown reservation
–
No 0/93/0/13
MPown reservation
–
No 0/16/0/2
C
–
Yes 20/0/1/3
L
–
Yes 10/0/0/6
KD
–
Yes 17/0/0/2
M
–
Yes 60/0/0/8
SD
–
Yes 62/0/0/9
Broke with the party line
CUlrika Heie(C, Västra Götalands läns östra)
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 motions
2025/26:171 by Nadja Awad et al. (V) request 9,
2025/26:322 by Ida Gabrielsson et al. (V) request 1,
2025/26:1083 by Markus Kauppinen et al. (S) request 3,
2025/26:1482 by Rose-Marie Carlsson et al. (S) requests 1 and 2,
2025/26:1807 by Aida Birinxhiku (S),
2025/26:2083 by Maria Stockhaus et al. (M),
2025/26:2777 by Nooshi Dadgostar et al. (V) request 35,
2025/26:2778 by Nadja Awad et al. (V) request 50,
2025/26:3557 by Mikael Damberg et al. (S) request 3,
2025/26:3560 by Mikael Damberg et al. (S) requests 3, 4 and 11,
2025/26:3584 by Mattias Vepsä et al. (S) request 4, and
2025/26:3645 by Fredrik Lundh Sammeli et al. (S) request 2.
Original (Swedish)
Riksdagen avslår motionerna
2025/26:171 av Nadja Awad m.fl. (V) yrkande 9,
2025/26:322 av Ida Gabrielsson m.fl. (V) yrkande 1,
2025/26:1083 av Markus Kauppinen m.fl. (S) yrkande 3,
2025/26:1482 av Rose-Marie Carlsson m.fl. (S) yrkandena 1 och 2,
2025/26:1807 av Aida Birinxhiku (S),
2025/26:2083 av Maria Stockhaus m.fl. (M),
2025/26:2777 av Nooshi Dadgostar m.fl. (V) yrkande 35,
2025/26:2778 av Nadja Awad m.fl. (V) yrkande 50,
2025/26:3557 av Mikael Damberg m.fl. (S) yrkande 3,
2025/26:3560 av Mikael Damberg m.fl. (S) yrkandena 3, 4 och 11,
2025/26:3584 av Mattias Vepsä m.fl. (S) yrkande 4 och
2025/26:3645 av Fredrik Lundh Sammeli m.fl. (S) yrkande 2.
Riksdag decision: The Riksdag rejected 69 proposals on municipal questions. All but one of the proposals were submitted during the general motion period 2025 and concern, among other things, the municipal financial equalization system, targeted government grants, profits in welfare and social dumping.
The Riksdag refers to existing legislation, ongoing investigations and work in the areas that the proposers raise.
The Riksdag has also addressed a statement from the government concerning the National Audit Office's report on general government grants. The National Audit Office has examined whether the government designed the temporarily increased government grants during the COVID-19 pandemic in an effective manner. The National Audit Office's overall conclusion is that the economic stimulus measures could have been designed more effectively as a stabilization policy instrument.
The government agrees to some extent with the National Audit Office's criticism, but emphasizes that it always strives to design appropriate measures during crises. The Riksdag recently placed a government statement about the fiscal policy framework into its records. In the statement, the government develops the principles for fiscal policy economic stabilization.
Based on the government's assessment of the National Audit Office's observations, the Riksdag does not at present see a need for any further measures. The Riksdag placed the statement in its records and rejected the motion that was raised in connection with the statement, which means that the matter is closed.
Counter-proposals
The counter-proposal wants to increase state financing of welfare with annual inflation indexation and to secure welfare through a guarantee model. (S, MP) — Reservation 9