Defence of Sweden's territory and investment on Gotland
What's at stake: The decision concerns where in the country defence resources are prioritised and how quickly a strategically exposed area like Gotland can be reinforced, which matters for security in the Baltic Sea region and for those who live and work on the island.
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 the Riksdag should already call for specific reinforcements of the defence on Gotland - a new amphibious battalion and brigade-level air defence - or whether the build-up of war units' capability should proceed uniformly across the whole country under the already decided direction.
Yes Yes — the committee proposal
The committee places great weight on building up the war organisation so that it can defend the whole of Sweden against armed attack and assert territorial integrity everywhere, without singling out any particular area, and therefore rejects calls to strengthen the defence of one specific area; motions on the Armed Forces' operational capability are rejected on the same grounds, with reference to building it up using existing resources under the goals the Riksdag has already decided.
No No — the reservations
Reservation 5 (S)
The dissenters want the investment on Gotland to continue by establishing a new operational amphibious battalion and setting up brigade-level air defence on the island, arguing that Gotland lies in the friction zone between Russia and Sweden and risks becoming a target for strategic coercion, and that the battle group already stationed there should be developed into a full tactical unit.
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 5 by S.
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
–
Yes 14/0/0/8
Sown reservation
–
No 0/92/0/14
MP
–
Yes 15/0/1/2
C
–
Abstain 0/1/20/3
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
MPDaniel Helldén(MP, Stockholms kommun)
Abstain — party line: Yes
CNiels Paarup-Petersen(C, Malmö kommun)
No — 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
The Riksdag rejects the motions
2025/26:225 by Björn Tidland (SD),
2025/26:399 by Gudrun Brunegård (KD),
2025/26:544 by Isak From et al. (S) request 4,
2025/26:1069 by Fredrik Lundh Sammeli et al. (S) request 1,
2025/26:1616 by Jennie Nilsson et al. (S),
2025/26:1659 by David Josefsson and Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (both M),
2025/26:2475 by Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M),
2025/26:2503 by Anna af Sillén and Ann-Sofie Lifvenhage (both M),
2025/26:2822 by Mikael Larsson et al. (C) request 1,
2025/26:2887 by David Josefsson and Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (both M),
2025/26:3443 by Ludvig Ceimertz et al. (M) request 1, and
2025/26:3556 by Peter Hultqvist et al. (S) requests 8 and 9.
Original (Swedish)
Riksdagen avslår motionerna
2025/26:225 av Björn Tidland (SD),
2025/26:399 av Gudrun Brunegård (KD),
2025/26:544 av Isak From m.fl. (S) yrkande 4,
2025/26:1069 av Fredrik Lundh Sammeli m.fl. (S) yrkande 1,
2025/26:1616 av Jennie Nilsson m.fl. (S),
2025/26:1659 av David Josefsson och Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (båda M),
2025/26:2475 av Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M),
2025/26:2503 av Anna af Sillén och Ann-Sofie Lifvenhage (båda M),
2025/26:2822 av Mikael Larsson m.fl. (C) yrkande 1,
2025/26:2887 av David Josefsson och Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (båda M),
2025/26:3443 av Ludvig Ceimertz m.fl. (M) yrkande 1 och
2025/26:3556 av Peter Hultqvist m.fl. (S) yrkandena 8 och 9.
Riksdag decision: The Riksdag rejected 160 proposals on total defence. The proposals were submitted during the general motion period 2025 and concern, among other things, the Swedish Armed Forces' operational capability and war organization, exercise activities and Sweden's support to Ukraine.
The Riksdag refers primarily to the fact that the considerations made in the decision on total defence for the period 2025–2030 stand firm and to the ongoing work in many of the various areas that the proposers raised.
Counter-proposals
The counter-proposal wants to strengthen Swedish total defense. (S) — Reservation 5
Motion 2025/26:1002 — Svenskar som har försvarat Ukraina av Magnus Jacobsson (KD)
Motion 2025/26:102 — Uppsägning av DCA-avtalet med USA av Hanna Gunnarsson m.fl. (V)
Motion 2025/26:1054 — Mänsklighetens utveckling och de existentiella hoten av Jamal El-Haj (-)
Motion 2025/26:1069 — Norrbottens strategiska roll i en ny tid av Fredrik Lundh Sammeli m.fl. (S)
Motion 2025/26:1238 — Värnande av Vätterns vatten av Niklas Sigvardsson m.fl. (S)
Motion 2025/26:1443 — Prioritering av den nationella säkerheten framför andra intressen vid offentlig upphandling eller utländska investeringar i Sverige av Patrik Lundqvist m.fl. (S)
Motion 2025/26:1616 — Ett robust försvar i Halland av Jennie Nilsson m.fl. (S)
Motion 2025/26:1659 — Stärkt försvar av Göteborg och västkusten av David Josefsson och Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (båda M)
Motion 2025/26:1662 — En självständig och säker livsmedelsförsörjning för Sverige och Norden av Emma Ahlström Köster (M)
Motion 2025/26:1891 — Snabbare uppbyggnad av krigssjukvård till stöd för Ukraina av Magnus Resare (M)
Motion 2025/26:1892 — Säkerställd tillgång till ortopedisk specialistkompetens i krigssjukvård av Magnus Resare (M)