Authors : Desmond Lilao; Afor Bridget Anne

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 9 - September

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/9z44wbma

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26sep876

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : This study investigates how Swedish party politics between 2016 and 2025 have shaped the country’s climate policy ambitions within the framework of the 2017 Climate Act and the EU Green Deal. Drawing on wedge-issue competition theory, the analysis applies a theory-driven qualitative content analysis to parliamentary debates to explore how climate policy has evolved beyond its traditional focus of widespread agreement toward structured political contestation. The findings show that while Swedish parties continue to agree on the necessity of climate action, they increasingly diverge over governance strategies, policy instruments, and the distribution of costs and benefits. Coalition politics and strategic party repositioning have shifted climate policy toward contested implementation rather than declining ambition. Overall, the study concludes that Sweden’s long-term climate goals to meet up with both the European Union Green Deal signed in the year 2019 to be realized by 2050 and equally the Swedish climate act of 2017 remain intact. But their realization depends on managing wedge-issue dynamics within an increasingly complex coalition-based political system.

Keywords : Swedish Politics, Climate Ambition, Wedge-Issue Competition, Coalition Politics, Climate Policy, EU Green Deal

References :

1. Bélanger, É. and Meguid, B.M. (2008) ‘Issue salience, issue ownership, and issue-based vote choice’, Electoral Studies, 27(3), pp. 477–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2008.01.001.
2. Betänkande (2016/17: MJU6)Godkännande av klimatavtalet från Paris.Swedish Riksdag. Available at:https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/betankande/godkannande-av-klimatavtalet-fran-paris_h401mju6/ (Accessed: 5 January 2026).
3. Calvin, K., Dasgupta, D., Krinner, G., Mukherji, A., Thorne, P.W., Trisos, C., Romero, J. et al. (2023) Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: IPCC.
4. Carter, N., Little, C. and Torney, D., 2019. Climate politics in small European states. Environmental Politics, 28(6), pp.981-996.
5. Ćetković, S. and Hagemann, C., 2020. Changing climate for populists? Examining the influence of radical-right political parties on low-carbon energy transitions in Western Europe. Energy research & social science, 66, p.101571.
6. Chhillar, P. and Lellapalli, R.V. (2015) ‘Divergence or convergence: paradoxes in corporate governance?’, Corporate Governance, 15(5), pp. 693–705.
7. Communication from the European Commission (2014) A policy framework for climate and energy in the period from 2020 to 2030. Brussels: European Commission. Available at: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/climate-change/2030-climate-and-energy-framework/ (Accessed: 12 December 2025).
8. Communication from the European Commission (2019) The European Green Deal. Brussels: European Commission..
9. Delreux, T. and Ohler, F., 2019. Climate policy in European Union politics. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics.
10. Duflo, E., Glennerster, R. and Kremer, M., 2007. Using randomization in development economics research: A toolkit. Handbook of development economics, 4, pp.3895-3962.
11. Dupont, C., Moore, B., Boasson, E.L., Gravey, V., Jordan, A., Kivimaa, P., Kulovesi, K., Kuzemko, C., Oberthür, S., Panchuk, D. and Rosamond, J., 2024. Three decades of EU climate policy: Racing toward climate neutrality?. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 15(1), p.e863.
12. Enqvist, C. (2021) The Sweden Democrats and the issue of climate change: A study on the definition and legitimization of social realities in a globalized world with a specific focus onpower relations. Available at: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1592126&dswid=-6665. (Accessed : 06 January 2026).
13. European Parliament (2024) Roadmap to EU climate neutrality: Scrutiny of member states. European Parliament Briefing. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2024/Roadmap-to-EU-Climate-Neutrality-Scrutiny-of-member-states (Accessed: 12 December 2025).
14. Jahn, D., 2017. New internal politics in western democracies: The impact of the environmental movement in highly industrialized democracies. In Parties, Governments and Elites: The Comparative Study of Democracy (pp. 125-150). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
15. Koebele, E.A., 2020. Cross‐coalition coordination in collaborative environmental governance processes. Policy Studies Journal, 48(3), pp.727-753.
16. Leader, An Environmental (n.d.) Sweden: A pioneer in environmental integration. [Online].
17. Meguid, B.M. (2008) Party competition between unequals: Strategies and electoral fortunes in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18. OECD (2025) OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Sweden 2025. Paris: OECD Publishing.
19. Pena, J.I. and Rodriguez, R. (2018) ‘Are EU’s climate and energy package 20-20-20 targets achievable and compatible? Evidence from the impact of renewables on electricity prices’, p. 2.
20. Tobin, P., 2017. Leaders and laggards: Climate policy ambition in developed states. Global Environmental Politics, 17(4), pp.28-47.
21. Swedish Climate Policy Council (2025) Climate Policy Council Report 2025. Stockholm: Climate Policy Council.
22. Von Malmborg, F. (2024) ‘The “nasty politics” of Swedish climate governance: A threat to the climate and democracy’, Presprint.org.
23. Vestergaard, M.B. (2025) ‘The paradox of positional convergence: How political parties use a commitment strategy to stand out from competitors’, Journal of European Public Policy, pp. 1–27.
24. Zhu, M., Chaturvedi, V., Clarke, L., Hochstetler, K., Hultman, N., Vogt-Schilb, A. and Wang, P. (2023) ‘Bridging the global stocktake gap of climate mitigation: A framework to measure political economy progress’, One Earth, 6(9), p. 1.