Två demokratier – två system: Grundlagsändring i Sverige och Danmark

One of the most invasive choices a democratic society can make is to amend its constitution. Despite the fact that Sweden and Denmark are frequently described as having very similar democracies, the two nations have made different decisions about how these changes should be carried out. The purpose of this essay is to compare and contrast Sweden's and Denmark's constitutional amendment procedures and how these variations impact the potential for political change. It is examined which actors are granted influence in the decision-making process and how high the thresholds for change are by comparing the constitutional frameworks of the two nations. The study's foundation is a qualitative text analysis of pertinent official documents and legal texts, which is bolstered by institutional theory and a power perspective. The outcome demonstrates that, in actuality, the Swedish model, despite its relatively slow procedure, offers greater flexibility for constitutional change than the Danish model, where strict public participation frequently makes it challenging to enact constitutional amendments.