2026-06-172025/26:SfU34 · p.2SfUMigration & social insurance
Detention Decisions
Detention decisions and proportionality assessment
What's at stake: The question concerns how well-reasoned individual detention decisions are and whether less intrusive alternatives, such as supervision, are systematically considered before someone is deprived of their liberty. It affects the legal safeguards of individuals at risk of detention and can also have financial implications, since alternatives can be cheaper.
Case texts and AI reasoning are AI-translated from the Swedish originals; the Swedish text is authoritative.
What the vote decides
Parliament decides whether the government should be given a formal call to ensure that detention decisions are always thoroughly reasoned and assessed for proportionality, including why alternatives are considered insufficient, or whether current practice already meets this standard.
Yes Yes — the committee proposal
The committee rejects the motion on detention decisions. The reason is that the committee, like the government, considers that measures have already been taken to ensure the authorities use detention strategically and create good planning conditions, and expects the government to continue monitoring how detention decisions are made without a specific formal statement being necessary.
No No — the reservations
Reservation 2 (S, V, C, MP)
The reservation (S, V, C, MP) calls for the government to ensure that detention decisions are always carefully reasoned and assessed for proportionality, and that each decision clearly states why less intrusive alternatives such as supervision were not considered sufficient. The reasoning is that the National Audit Office found shortcomings in the agencies' processes for making well-balanced decisions, and that research shows alternatives to detention are often both more humane and more cost-effective.
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 2 by S, V, C, 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 | No 0/21/0/0 | follows the plan | confidence: medium | not addressed |
| S | No | No 0/105/0/1 | follows the plan | confidence: medium | not addressed |
| MP | No | No 0/18/0/0 | follows the plan | confidence: medium | not addressed |
| C | No | No 0/24/0/0 | follows the plan | confidence: medium | not addressed |
| L | No | Yes 16/0/0/0 | departs from the plan | confidence: medium | not addressed |
| KD | No | Yes 19/0/0/0 | departs from the plan | confidence: low | not addressed |
| M | No | Yes 66/0/0/0 | departs from the plan | confidence: low | not addressed |
| SD | Yes | Yes 70/0/0/0 | follows the plan | confidence: medium | not addressed |
Committee proposal
Parliament rejects motion 2025/26:3976 by Niels Paarup-Petersen et al. (C) claim 2.
Original (Swedish)
Riksdagen avslår motion 2025/26:3976 av Niels Paarup-Petersen m.fl. (C) yrkande 2.
Riksdag decision: The Swedish National Audit Office has examined whether the Migration Agency's and Police Authority's work with detention activities is effective. Their overall conclusion is that detention activities do not function effectively. The Government has presented its assessment of the observations made by the Swedish National Audit Office and the recommendations directed to the Government in the report Detention in the Migration Process – an expensive tool without clear governance. In the same statement, the Government also reports what measures it has taken and intends to take in response to the Swedish National Audit Office's recommendations. Parliament filed the Government's statement with the records, that is, closed the case.
Counter-proposals
- The counter-proposal wants to strengthen legal security in detention through stricter application of the proportionality principle and greater use of less restrictive alternatives. (S, V, C, MP) — Reservation 2
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 requires a justice system built on legal certainty, upheld through legal aid, public oversight and independent review, and that proposals should prove effective and fair when implemented.
Plan documents: party programme · 2022 manifesto
Reasoning and quotes
The plan requires a justice system built on legal certainty, upheld through legal aid, public oversight and independent review, and that proposals should prove effective and fair when implemented. The counter-proposal's demand that every decision on detention is justified and proportionality-tested, and that it appears why less intrusive alternatives were insufficient, follows from this. The election manifesto furthermore establishes that the right to asylum can never be compromised.
Original (Swedish)
Planen kräver ett rättsväsende byggt på rättssäkerhet, upprätthållen genom rättshjälp, medborgerlig insyn och oberoende granskning, och att förslag ska visa sig effektiva och rättvisa när de genomförs. Motförslagets krav på att varje beslut om frihetsberövande är motiverat och proportionalitetsprövat, och att det framgår varför mindre ingripande alternativ inte räckt, följer av detta. Valmanifestet slår dessutom fast att asylrätten aldrig får tummas på.
- legally certain justice systemdecisive»Utvecklingen av ett rättsväsende byggt på rättssäkerhet är viktig« (party programme ↗)“The development of a justice system built on legal certainty is important”
- legal certainty and oversight»Rättssäkerheten behöver upprätthållas genom rättshjälp, medborgerlig« (party programme ↗)“Legal certainty needs to be upheld through legal aid, public”
- research-based measures»förslag som visar sig effektiva och rättvisa den dag de genomförs.« (party programme ↗)“proposals that prove effective and fair when they are implemented.”
- right to asylum inviolable»Rätten att söka asyl kan aldrig tummas på, vi kräver att endast permanenta uppehållstillstånd ska utfärdas vid beviljad asyl.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“The right to seek asylum can never be compromised, we demand that only permanent residence permits be issued when asylum is granted.”
The plan requires that the principles of the rule of law are upheld, that authorities' interventions are built on evidence, efficiency and legal certainty and that civil liberties and rights are protected.
Plan documents: party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The plan requires that the principles of the rule of law are upheld, that authorities' interventions are built on evidence, efficiency and legal certainty and that civil liberties and rights are protected. That each decision about deprivation of liberty shall be carefully reasoned and proportionality-tested, with an explanation of why less intrusive alternatives are not sufficient, is an application of these commitments. The plan's requirement for equality before the law speaks to the same thing.
Original (Swedish)
Planen kräver att rättsstatens principer upprätthålls, att myndigheternas ingripanden bygger på evidens, effektivitet och rättssäkerhet och att medborgerliga fri- och rättigheter skyddas. Att varje beslut om frihetsberövande ska vara noggrant motiverat och proportionalitetsprövat, med redovisning av varför mindre ingripande alternativ inte räcker, är en tillämpning av dessa åtaganden. Planens krav på likhet inför lagen talar för samma sak.
- rule of law principlesdecisive»Slå vakt om rättsstatens principer.« (party programme ↗)“Uphold the principles of the rule of law.”
- evidence and legal certainty»Kriminalpolitik byggd på evidens, effektivitet och rättssäkerhet.« (party programme ↗)“Criminal policy built on evidence, efficiency and legal certainty.”
- civil liberties and rights»Skydd för medborgerliga fri- och rättigheter.« (party programme ↗)“Protection of civil liberties and rights.”
- equality before the law»En rättsordning som bygger på allas likhet inför lagen.« (party programme ↗)“A legal order built on everyone's equality before the law.”
The plan stands for a humane and legally secure migration policy and requires that legal certainty is guaranteed throughout the legal system.
Plan documents: party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The plan stands for a humane and legally secure migration policy and requires that legal certainty is guaranteed throughout the legal system. The principle that the least intrusive measure should be chosen first is expressed, among other things, in that community-based penalties should be the first choice for minor crimes. The counter-proposal's demand for carefully justified and proportionality-tested decisions on deprivation of liberty, where it is clear why alternatives were insufficient, is in line with this. The demand is supported.
Original (Swedish)
Planen står för en human och rättssäker migrationspolitik och kräver att rättssäkerheten garanteras i hela rättssystemet. Principen att minst ingripande åtgärd ska väljas i första hand uttrycks bland annat i att frivårdspåföljder ska vara förstahandsval vid lindrigare brott. Motförslagets krav på noggrant motiverade och proportionalitetsprövade beslut om frihetsberövande, där det framgår varför alternativ inte räckt, ligger i linje med detta. Kravet stöds.
- humane and legally secure migrationdecisive»Vi gröna står för en human och rättssäker migrationspolitik.« (party programme ↗)“We Greens stand for a humane and legally secure migration policy.”
- legal certainty review»prövas noggrant utifrån rättssäkerhet och grundläggande fri- och rättigheter.« (party programme ↗)“tested carefully on the basis of legal certainty and fundamental freedoms and rights.”
- least intrusive measure first»Frivårdspåföljder ska användas som förstahandsval vid lindrigare brott.« (party programme ↗)“Community-based penalties should be used as the first choice for minor crimes.”
- guaranteed legal certainty»Alla ska vara lika inför lagen och rättssäkerheten måste garanteras i« (party programme ↗)“Everyone should be equal before the law and legal certainty must be guaranteed in”
The plan establishes that the state is the only entity that may exercise coercion and that this power must therefore be controlled, and that the intrusion shall be proportionate to the purpose.
Plan documents: party programme · 2022 manifesto
Reasoning and quotes
The plan establishes that the state is the only entity that may exercise coercion and that this power must therefore be controlled, and that the intrusion shall be proportionate to the purpose. That each decision on deprivation of liberty shall be justified and proportionality-tested, with disclosure of why less intrusive alternatives are insufficient, is that control in practice. Therefore the counter-proposal's demand is supported.
Original (Swedish)
Planen slår fast att staten är den enda som får utöva tvång och att den makten därför måste vara kontrollerad, samt att ingreppet ska stå i proportion till syftet. Att varje beslut om frihetsberövande ska vara motiverat och proportionalitetsprövat, med redovisning av varför mindre ingripande alternativ inte räcker, är den kontrollen i praktiken. Därför stöds motförslagets krav.
- control of state coercive powerdecisive»Staten är den enda enheten i samhället som får utöva tvång och våld.« (party programme ↗)“The state is the only entity in society that may exercise coercion and violence.”
- proportionality test»Det måste finnas en proportionalitet mellan lagstiftningens inskränkning av medborgarnas integritet och lagarnas syfte.« (party programme ↗)“There must be proportionality between the legislation's restriction of citizens' integrity and the law's purpose.”
- individual rights against the state»Rättsstaten och individens rättigheter gentemot staten måste försvaras.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“The rule of law and the individual's rights against the state must be defended.”
- right to examination»Alla som bor i Sverige ska kunna få sin sak prövad.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“All who live in Sweden shall be able to have their case examined.”
The plan requires that legal security and protection for civil liberties and rights be strengthened and that supervision of authorities' exercise of power against individuals be developed.
Plan documents: party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The plan requires that legal security and protection for civil liberties and rights be strengthened and that supervision of authorities' exercise of power against individuals be developed. Requirements that each decision about deprivation of liberty be motivated and subject to proportionality testing is a direct application of that. That the individual's opportunities against authorities shall increase points in the same direction.
Original (Swedish)
Planen kräver att rättssäkerheten och skyddet för de medborgerliga fri- och rättigheterna förstärks och att tillsynen över myndigheters maktutövning mot enskilda utvecklas. Krav på att varje beslut om frihetsberövande är motiverat och proportionalitetsprövat är en direkt tillämpning av det. Att den enskildes möjligheter gentemot myndigheterna ska öka pekar åt samma håll.
- strengthened legal securitydecisive»Rättssäkerheten och skyddet för de medborgerliga fri- och rättigheterna behöver förstärkas.« (party programme ↗)“Legal security and protection for civil liberties and rights needs to be strengthened.”
- strengthened supervision of authorities»Tillsynen över myndigheternas maktutövning mot enskilda behöver utvecklas genom starka tillsynsmyndigheter för bland annat polis, kriminalvård och socialtjänst.« (party programme ↗)“Supervision of authorities' exercise of power against individuals needs to be developed through strong supervisory authorities for, among other things, police, criminal justice and social services.”
- individuals' rights against authorities»Den enskildes möjligheter att hävda sina rättigheter gentemot myndigheterna måste öka.« (party programme ↗)“The individual's opportunities to assert their rights against authorities must increase.”
- proportionality testing»Åtgärder som påverkar den personliga integriteten negativt är endast berättigade om ett motstående intresse väger uppenbart tyngre och åtgärden är effektiv.« (party programme ↗)“Measures that negatively affect personal integrity are only justified if a contrary interest weighs clearly more heavily and the measure is effective.”
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 directly address detention decisions, but it counts personal freedom and integrity among the rights that the constitution should protect against abuse and requires that legal certainty is guaranteed to the individual in the migration process.
Plan documents: party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The plan does not directly address detention decisions, but it counts personal freedom and integrity among the rights that the constitution should protect against abuse and requires that legal certainty is guaranteed to the individual in the migration process. The counter-proposal's requirement for carefully justified and proportionality-tested deprivations of liberty, with an account of why less intrusive alternatives are insufficient, follows from this. The plan's position that coercion shall be used restrictively points in the same direction.
Original (Swedish)
Planen behandlar inte förvarsbeslut direkt, men den räknar personlig frihet och integritet till de rättigheter grundlagen ska skydda mot övergrepp och kräver att rättssäkerhet garanteras den enskilde i migrationsprocessen. Motförslagets krav på noggrant motiverade och proportionalitetsprövade frihetsberövanden, med redovisning av varför mindre ingripande alternativ inte räcker, följer av det. Planens hållning att tvång ska användas restriktivt pekar åt samma håll.
- protection of personal freedomdecisive»Sådana rättigheter är framför allt rätten till liv, personlig frihet och integritet« (party programme ↗)“Such rights are first and foremost the right to life, personal freedom and integrity”
- legal certainty in the asylum process»För den som söker asyl i Sverige måste hela processen vara utformad så att rättssäkerhet garanteras den enskilde.« (party programme ↗)“For those seeking asylum in Sweden, the entire process must be designed so that legal certainty is guaranteed to the individual.”
- restrictive use of coercion»Tvångsvård ska användas restriktivt och endast där särskilda skäl finns.« (party programme ↗)“Coercive care shall be used restrictively and only where special grounds exist.”
- protection of rights against the public»Fri- och rättighetsskyddet ska vara relaterat till förhållandet mellan det allmänna och den enskilde såväl som mellan enskilda.« (party programme ↗)“Protection of freedoms and rights shall relate to the relationship between the public and the individual as well as between individuals.”
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 party programme requires that all public power exercise be guided by equal treatment and predictability and that power is never exercised arbitrarily, and that the justice system is characterized by legal certainty.
Plan documents: party programme · 2022 manifesto
Reasoning and quotes
The party programme requires that all public power exercise be guided by equal treatment and predictability and that power is never exercised arbitrarily, and that the justice system is characterized by legal certainty. A requirement that every decision on detention be justified and proportionality-tested follows from that principle and concerns the quality of decisions, not the tightness of immigration policy. However, the conclusion rests only on general principles, since the plan is silent on pre-trial detention decisions.
Original (Swedish)
Partiprogrammet kräver att all offentlig maktutövning vägleds av likabehandling och förutsebarhet och att makt aldrig utövas godtyckligt, samt att rättsväsendet präglas av rättssäkerhet. Ett krav på att varje beslut om frihetsberövande ska vara motiverat och proportionalitetsprövat följer av den principen och rör beslutens kvalitet, inte migrationspolitikens stramhet. Slutsatsen vilar dock enbart på allmänna principer, eftersom planen är tyst om förvarsbeslut.
- equal treatment and predictabilitydecisive»principer om likabehandling och förutsebarhet.« (party programme ↗)“principles of equal treatment and predictability.”
- legally certain justice system»Sverige ska ha ett rättsväsende präglat av rättssäkerhet« (party programme ↗)“Sweden should have a justice system characterized by legal certainty”
- protected personal integrity»Den personliga integriteten ska värnas, såväl från intrång« (party programme ↗)“Personal integrity should be protected, as well as against interference”
- effective return»Av största vikt är att den som fått ett nej på asylansökan så fort som möjligt lämnar landet.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Of utmost importance is that the person who received a no on their asylum application leaves the country as soon as possible.”
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 counter-proposal wants to build in an obligation to motivate in every detention order why less intrusive alternatives are not sufficient, on the grounds that alternatives are more humane and cost-effective.
Plan documents: 2022 manifesto
Reasoning and quotes
The counter-proposal wants to build in an obligation to motivate in every detention order why less intrusive alternatives are not sufficient, on the grounds that alternatives are more humane and cost-effective. The election manifesto instead requires that thresholds for detention and enforcement of deportations are lowered and that detention capacity is expanded. The plan thus argues against the counter-proposal's demands.
Original (Swedish)
Motförslaget vill bygga in en skyldighet att i varje förvarsbeslut motivera varför mindre ingripande alternativ inte räcker, med argumentet att alternativ är mer humana och kostnadseffektiva. Valmanifestet kräver tvärtom att trösklarna för att ta i förvar och verkställa utvisningar sänks och att förvarskapaciteten byggs ut. Planen talar därför emot motförslagets krav.
- lowered thresholds for detentiondecisive»Trösklarna för att ta i förvar och utvisa personer samt verkställa utvisningar behöver också sänkas.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Thresholds for detention and deportation and enforcement of deportations also need to be lowered.”
- more controls and deportations»Bekämpa skuggsamhället och illegal migration med fler kontroller och fler utvisningar« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Combat the shadow economy and illegal migration with more controls and more deportations”
- expanded detention capacity»Utöka tillgången på anstaltsplatser i och utanför Sverige« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Expand access to prison places in and outside Sweden”
- focus on voluntary returns»Sverige behöver vända decennier av oansvarig massinvandring till att fokusera på frivillig återvändandeverksamhet.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Sweden needs to reverse decades of irresponsible mass immigration to focus on voluntary return activities.”
Share and embed
Sources and documents
- The committee report on riksdagen.se (2025/26:SfU34)
- Committee report full text (HD01SfU34)
- Per-MP voting data (API)
- Case status (API)
Documents under consideration
- Motion 2025/26:3968 — med anledning av skr. 2025/26:137 Riksrevisionens rapport om förvar i migrationsprocessen av Ida Karkiainen m.fl. (S)
- Motion 2025/26:3976 — med anledning av skr. 2025/26:137 Riksrevisionens rapport om förvar i migrationsprocessen av Niels Paarup-Petersen m.fl. (C)
- Motion 2025/26:3983 — med anledning av skr. 2025/26:137 Riksrevisionens rapport om förvar i migrationsprocessen av Annika Hirvonen m.fl. (MP)
- Regeringens skrivelse 2025/26:137 — Riksrevisionens rapport om förvar i migrationsprocessen
Source: The Swedish Parliament