Sweden’s Disinformation Campaign – The State as Deceiver?
Abstract:
On the international stage, Sweden has consistently positioned itself as a stalwart of democracy, transparency, equality, and child protection. But recent events have challenged this image. Following Al Jazeera’s documentary exposing alleged systemic injustices within Sweden’s child protection services – specifically the controversial use of the Act with Special Provisions on the Care of Young People (LVU) – Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson responded not with transparency, but with condemnation.
Al Jazeera, one of the world’s most established international news networks, was accused of spreading “misinformation” and threatening Sweden’s national security. This article explores the contradiction at the heart of Sweden’s information policy and raises a fundamental question: Who is truly responsible for disinformation –foreign actors or the Swedish state itself?
“Sweden Mimics Authoritarian Rhetoric to Silence Global Critics”
This reaction warrants critical examination – not least because it demonstrates a dangerous conflation of state accountability with national security, a hallmark of the very regimes Sweden claims to oppose. If we hold Sweden’s rhetoric against its actions, an unsettling question arises:
Is Sweden itself engaged in a state-sanctioned disinformation campaign to suppress legitimate criticism and avoid scrutiny?
When Sweden’s Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson publicly denounced the internationally renowned media outlet Al Jazeera for spreading “misinformation” about Sweden’s social services, the rhetoric echoed a disturbing pattern increasingly common among authoritarian regimes: the reflexive attribution of critical scrutiny to foreign subversion rather than domestic accountability.
The criticism followed the broadcast of an Al Jazeera documentary highlighting how children, often from minority or migrant backgrounds, have been forcibly separated from their parents under Sweden’s Law with Special Provisions on the Care of Young People (LVU). The response from the Swedish state was swift and striking –not a transparent audit of the legal and procedural justifications behind such interventions, but a defensive campaign branding such journalism as a national security threat.
Ironically, in accusing others of disinformation, the Swedish state may itself be engaging in a form of strategic narrative manipulation – a methodology not dissimilar to the practices it ostensibly opposes in regimes like Putin’s Russia.
Manufactured Consensus and Institutional Deflection
The official statement published on 18 November 2022, titled “Disinformation about Swedish social services on social media,” employs a notably polished bureaucratic tone to assert that all children in Sweden are treated equally and in accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The statement defends the LVU process as rigorously controlled, lawful, and professionally implemented.
However, this official portrait fails to address the core grievances raised not only by foreign media but also by Swedish citizens, civil society actors, and affected families themselves: that the LVU system is marked by systemic opacity, lack of due process, and an entrenched power asymmetry between the state and individuals – particularly immigrants and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups.
The Government’s assertion that “disinformation is being spread online and on social media” is itself a sweeping generalization that discourages legitimate public scrutiny. The suggestion that all criticism stems from “foreign actors” and “radical Islamist contexts” presents a false binary: Either one supports the Swedish state unconditionally, or one is a tool of extremism.
Parallels to Authoritarian Narrative Control
In language and tone, the Swedish state’s response bears an uncomfortable resemblance to the mechanisms of narrative control employed by authoritarian regimes. The publication of government-sanctioned “truths,” the suppression of independent investigative journalism, and the securitization of critique are hallmarks of democratic erosion.
The Swedish Defense University’s report, commissioned by the Psychological Defense Agency, goes further, describing the criticism of social services as “The largest influence campaign Sweden has ever faced”. The language of national emergency is deployed not to confront corruption or abuse within institutions, but to shield them from public examination.
Statements from terror researcher Magnus Ranstorp, linking criticism of the LVU process to Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, lack clear evidentiary foundations in the public domain and serve primarily to delegitimize dissent through guilt by association. This strategy is not new – it mirrors Russia’s and Belarus’s repeated strategy of discrediting all opposition as externally orchestrated and extremist in nature.
The Blind Spot – Structural Failures and Public Distrust
The state’s own commissioned research admits a fundamental problem: “Distrust of Swedish authorities is not new”. This recognition, buried beneath the accusatory rhetoric, is crucial. Rather than acknowledging systemic shortcomings and failures to engage marginalized communities with transparency, Sweden has opted to pathologize public distrust as foreign interference.
The true vulnerability exposed by the so-called “disinformation campaign” is not the influence of foreign actors – it is the inability of the Swedish legal and administrative apparatus to respond with humility and democratic self-correction. In treating public concern as a threat, rather than a signal of democratic discontent, the state undermines its own legitimacy.
SÄPO’s Narrative – From External Threats to Internal Silencing
The Swedish Security Service (SÄPO), in its 2025 statement, further expanded this securitized framework. While acknowledging legitimate threats from Russia and extremist ideologies, the agency also noted:
The implication is clear: Criticism of the state may itself be considered a precursor to extremism. This reasoning transforms political discourse into a security threat and enables the preemptive targeting of civil liberties. When the state views critique as conspiracy, democratic debate becomes criminalized.
Discrediting the Discredited
While the Swedish government paints its critics as purveyors of falsehoods and extremism, it simultaneously demands unquestioned trust in its own narrative – despite longstanding and well-documented institutional failures. In fact, the Swedish social services system has no consistent or independent international monitoring mechanism, and domestic legal remedies are structurally biased in favor of the state.
Moreover, the overwhelming presence of secrecy (offentlighets – och sekretesslagen) within child protection cases makes external scrutiny virtually impossible. Families are silenced under the guise of protecting the child’s privacy, while the state retains control of the narrative. In such a context, accusations of “disinformation” lose all meaning, as truth itself is state-defined.
Conclusion – Who Defines Disinformation?
Sweden faces a fundamental question: in a democracy, who has the authority to define “truth”? When government institutions unilaterally designate criticism as “disinformation” and discourage investigative reporting through securitized rhetoric, the line between democratic governance and authoritarian deflection begins to blur.
It is not Al Jazeera, but the Swedish Government that must answer for a disinformation campaign – one cloaked not in viral memes or shadowy networks, but in press releases, academic reports commissioned by the state, and televised interviews by government-affiliated researchers.
The true test of a democratic society lies not in the suppression of criticism, but in its ability to withstand, respond to, and learn from it. By vilifying its critics rather than engaging with their claims, the Swedish state risks becoming precisely what it claims to resist: an agent of deception.
Author’s Note: This article is a critical analysis of public documents and statements by Swedish authorities. It does not seek to deny legitimate security concerns, but to highlight the need for balanced, transparent, and rights-respecting governance.
Democracy is not defined by the absence of enemies, but by how a state treats its own citizens—and its critics.
UA 
EN 
RU 
SK 
IT 
EL 
SV