The Parliamentary Ombudsman (JO) – Legitimizing The State
The Parliamentary Ombudsman (JO) is intended to serve as an independent guardian of the rule of law, tasked with scrutinizing the exercise of public power and protecting individuals’ fundamental rights. However, behind the institutional facade, a different reality emerges: a toothless tiger — loud in theory, but passive and system-preserving in practice.
Despite increasing reports of legally insecure administrative decisions, particularly in cases of compulsory care under the LVU (Care of Young Persons Act), the JO often serves merely as a symbolic marker without imposing real consequences on those responsible. This failure undermines not only public confidence in the Ombudsman but also in the Swedish rule of law as a whole.
“When state misconduct is shielded instead of scrutinized, justice becomes an illusion.”
1. An Overseer Without Tools — or Without Will?
It is well known that the JO lacks sanctioning powers. Yet it is not primarily the absence of legal tools that explains the institution’s weakened legitimacy.
It is the systematic unwillingness to issue sharp and public criticism, to initiate principled investigations, and to elevate structural abuses into political or legal discourse. When the JO contents itself with merely “noting deficiencies” in individual cases while consistently avoiding drawing broader conclusions about patterns and systemic failures, government transgressions remain effectively without consequence.
2. Warning Signs Met with Silence
The JO’s passivity becomes particularly glaring in cases where children are separated from their parents on questionable grounds.
Despite repeated reports by international bodies and UN agencies criticizing Sweden’s shortcomings in upholding human rights in cases of forced separations, the JO often refrains even from investigating complaints concerning these serious matters. When the most vulnerable points of the rule of law break down, the institution that should act as its strongest voice remains silent. “Silence in the face of abuse is not neutrality — it is complicity”.
“The transformation of an oversight institution into a shield for abuses is a betrayal of democratic principles”.
3. The Best Interests of the Child — or the Interests of the State?
Sweden has ratified both the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Hague Convention, both aimed at protecting children from unlawful or insecure separation from their guardians. Yet Swedish authorities are sometimes complicit in forcibly separating children from their parents without due legal safeguards or respect for these conventions.
In such instances, the JO has both the opportunity and the obligation to review administrative decisions. Instead, the Ombudsman repeatedly chooses inaction, despite clear indications that the Swedish administration has facilitated what amounts to unlawful forced separations.
Authorities’ actions are deemed “within the margin of discretion”, effectively closing the door to further scrutiny.
Such practices create a de facto immunity for public authorities, even when their conduct clearly breaches Swedish family law, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Hague Convention’s mechanisms.
4. When the State Becomes an Accomplice
Several cases have gained international attention in which Swedish authorities, such as the Social Services, the Migration Agency, or the police, have enabled the removal of children from a parent in violation of both Swedish law and international obligations. When such cases are reported to the JO, they are often met with standard replies stating that the matter “does not warrant an investigation.”
This is not a matter of unclear legal standards — it is a matter of the JO actively choosing not to examine government accountability. Thus, an institution intended to protect rights becomes, instead, a legitimizing force for state participation in cross-border violations.
This is not the rule of law. It is loyalty to the system at the expense of individual rights.
In practice, the JO often serves more as a buffer against criticism than as a catalyst for change.
By systematically dismissing complaints with standardized language such as “no grounds for further investigation” or “within the agency’s discretionary space,” the Ombudsman contributes to legitimizing public authority misconduct. For individual citizens, this amounts to a bureaucratic dead end where the pursuit of justice is met with administrative indifference.
The cost of JO’s passivity is profound:
Parents lose their children without access to effective legal remedies.
Children are uprooted in the name of the “best interests of the child” through processes lacking legal safeguards.
Sweden’s credibility as a state committed to international law is eroded.
Rather than addressing these failures, JO remains silent, thereby becoming part of the systemic dysfunction.
“Silence in the face of injustice is not neutrality; it is complicity”!
6. Depoliticization as a Strategy
As Parliament’s appointed ombudsman, the JO’s role should be grounded in constitutional weight and an active defense of democratic principles.
In practice, however, the institution has been reduced to a technocratic actor, meticulously depoliticized and bound to nothing of substantive consequence. By consistently avoiding taking a stance on controversial matters, particularly where government actions may conflict with the Constitution or the European Convention on Human Rights, the JO abdicates its democratic mandate and reduces itself to a mere administrative formality.
7. Maintaining the Illusion of the Rule of Law
The JO plays a central role in maintaining the image of Sweden as a strong rule-of-law state. Yet this is increasingly a facade.
As long as the JO fails to seriously intervene against grave abuses within administrative practice, it becomes part of the problem rather than its solution. The protection of the rule of law erodes, and citizens’ trust in the system diminishes with every silently dismissed abuse report.
Conclusion: Time for a Paradigm Shift
The consequences of the JO’s passivity are devastating. Parents are stripped of their children without the possibility of effective legal review. Children are uprooted under the banner of “the child’s best interests” without the protection of legally secure processes. International observers question Sweden’s commitment and ability to honor its treaty obligations.
Rather than addressing criticism and highlighting the shortcomings of Sweden’s protective mechanisms, the JO silently perpetuates the problem.
To restore credibility as a rule-of-law state, Sweden must fundamentally redefine the role and culture of the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
This is not merely a matter of granting the institution sharper powers, but — more importantly — of reinstating a culture characterized by courage, accountability, and transparency.
The toothless tiger must be replaced by a true guardian — one that dares to roar when the abuse of state power threatens individual freedom and rights.
“A rule of law without a courageous guardian is a state unprotected from its own abuses”.
Instead of mere reminders that good administrative practices are insufficient:
Identify patterns of abuse,
Demand accountability, and
Protect individual rights against arbitrary power.
If the Parliamentary Ombudsman is unable or unwilling to fulfill this mission, the Swedish Parliament must urgently review both its mandate and appointment procedures.
The toothless tiger has growled long enough. Sweden now needs an oversight body with both teeth and courage.
SK 
EN 
RU 
UA 
IT 
EL 
SV