Citizenship, residence, and family reunification: Three perspectives on Sweden's changing migration regime
From Sweden's first citizenship test to new restrictions on residence and family reunification, three CMIR postdoctoral researchers examine how the country's migration regime is changing, what the changes mean in practice, and whether stricter conditions reflect what the public actually wants.
Photo by Dmitrii E. on Unsplash
The three recent contributions approach Sweden's changing migration regime from different perspectives. Together, they raise questions about legal certainty, the growing conditionality of residence and citizenship, and the assumptions about public opinion used to justify stricter requirements.
Sweden's first citizenship test
On August 15, almost 900 people gathered at the Stockholm Exhibition & Congress Center in Älvsjö to take Sweden's first citizenship test. Although formally a trial, its outcome will still count toward participants' citizenship applications.
Writing for GLOBALCIT at the European University Institute, Nina Carlsson examines the practical organization of the test and the uncertainty surrounding its consequences. Participants did not know how many correct answers would be required to pass, while conflicting information emerged about whether failing could ultimately lead to the rejection of an entire citizenship application.
The test was introduced less than a month before Sweden's parliamentary elections and forms part of a wider package of new citizenship requirements. These changes are expected to apply without transitional provisions, including to applications submitted under the previous rules.
For Carlsson, the test therefore raises broader questions about legal certainty and trust in the state when requirements change while applications are still being processed.
The uncertainties surrounding the test also point to a wider transformation in which access to secure legal status is becoming increasingly conditional.
Read Nina Carlsson's full blog post: "Sweden's first-ever citizenship test: A trial with unclear consequences"
When legal status becomes temporary
That wider transformation is explored by Sofi Jansson-Keshavarz in a blog post for the Migration Scholars' Global Solidarity and Resistance Network.
Jansson-Keshavarz describes it through the concept of "temporary legality": a condition in which the right to remain becomes increasingly temporary, conditional, and open to reassessment. Recent developments include legislation ending the issuance of new permanent residence permits for asylum-related categories, the introduction of a broadly defined "good conduct" requirement, and proposals to allow citizenship to be revoked from some dual nationals.
Drawing on the story of her friend "Amir," Jansson-Keshavarz shows how people who were granted refugee status and permanent residence many years ago can nevertheless experience renewed uncertainty as the rules governing residence and citizenship change.
Her analysis also shows how border control increasingly extends beyond migration authorities. Access to housing, stable employment, education, and other welfare-related resources can now determine whether people are able to retain legal status or reunite with family members. In this way, insecurity can persist long after a residence permit has been granted.
Family reunification is one area in which this growing conditionality has become particularly visible. But do such requirements reflect what the public actually wants?
Read Sofi Jansson-Keshavarz's full blog post: "The expanding logic of temporary legality"
Do stricter family migration rules reflect public opinion?
Stricter migration requirements are often presented as a response to public concern. But new research discussed by Anton Ahlén, Karin Borevi, Lutz Gschwind, Jonas Hultin Rosenberg, and Johan Wejryd suggests that policymakers may overestimate public support for making family reunification conditional.
In a survey experiment involving more than 4,000 respondents in Germany, Italy, and Sweden, the researchers examined whether support for family reunification was influenced by the resident family member's employment, financial resources, language skills, or legal status.
Across all three countries, none of these characteristics had a meaningful effect on respondents' choices. Even respondents who were generally more restrictive toward family reunification did not show substantial support for conditioning it on these factors.
Religion was the exception: Christian residents were more likely to receive support than Muslim residents. Yet the broader pattern remained consistent. When assessing whether residents should be able to reunite with their spouses, respondents appeared to treat family reunification as a legitimate claim in itself rather than something to be earned by meeting integration-related conditions.
The findings point to a possible new opinion-policy gap. While family migration policies are becoming more conditional, public attitudes may not be driving that development as strongly as political debates suggest.
Rethinking the boundaries of membership
Taken together, the three blog posts show how the conditions attached to membership are changing at several stages: when people seek citizenship, when they depend on residence permits, and when they want to live with their families.
They also complicate the idea that stricter conditions are either administratively straightforward or straightforwardly demanded by the public. Instead, they draw attention to the uncertainty these policies create, the institutions through which they are enforced, and the unequal consequences they may have for people trying to secure their place in Swedish society.
