Abstract
Abstract The constitution holds unparalleled importance in a well-established democracy, serving as the foremost legal, political, and social document that molds the life of the entire national community. Beyond structuring the fundamental components of a state, constitutions also articulate the core values guiding both public and private actors. However, upon closer examination of realities, the idealized concept of constitutions reveals a divergence in many contemporary democracies, including Sweden. Despite aspiring to the ideal-typical model, Sweden showcases a divergence in its constitutional landscape. Certain constitutional documents in the Scandinavian country are deemed ‘fully constitutional,’ providing a solid and stable legal foundation acknowledged by both legal and political actors to shape and limit their work. On the contrary, substantial portions of Sweden’s constitutional charters appear less stable, lacking essential support within the legal discourse of the nation. This work aims to present the varying perception and utilization of constitutional charters in Sweden, exploring the factors contributing to their “political” role rather than a purely legal one in the national discourse. Additionally, it highlights recent shifts in these factors, suggesting emerging tendencies that may guide major legal actors in Sweden toward a more inherently ‘legal’ vision of the constitution as a fundamental framework for all legal and political discourse.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call