The Swedish riksdag became the ultimate source of power when absolutism was abolished in the wake of the death of Charles XII in 1718. This had major repercussions for the organization of the Swedish parliament, which underwent changes that were codified in the 1723 Ordinance of the riksdag. In the present chapter, two of these changes are analyzed: the introduction of the free mandate (which amounted to a rejection of constituents’ rights to control the actions of the members of the riksdag) and the introduction of majority voting. Both phenomena were, it is argued, consequences of the need to make the workings of the riksdag more efficient in the face of the increase in the number of matters on which the assembly had to decide and the work that accompanied this increase. The new regulations in the Ordinance also reflect widely shared norms, among them the notion that the members of the riksdag and the various estates were of equal worth, and that the members had individual responsibility to use their judgment for the benefit of the entire realm. This discussion makes evidently clear that the free mandate was not, as has recently been claimed, a uniquely English invention. Rather, both in England and Sweden the free mandate gained importance when centralized states were ruled by national parliaments.

This book deals with six critical junctures in early modern Sweden between 1500 and 1810, intense periods of change when the prevailing system of government was challenged and replaced by something different – a new political regime. Drawing on both history and the social sciences, this book presents a new interpretation of Sweden’s early modern political history. First, each critical juncture’s course of events is analysed, and key political actors’ incentives and motives are identified. The impact and effects of each regime shift are explained using three analytical key concepts: state capacity, impartiality, and political participation. Second, the various regime shifts are compared and the long-term effects of the early modern changes on state formation and democratization are discussed. How and in what ways did the turbulent changes in government affect Sweden’s subsequent development into a modern, democratic state?

Sweden’s conflict-ridden history is highly relevant for understanding the process of state formation in early modern Europe. In comparative studies, sixteenth-century Sweden is sometimes highlighted as a pioneer; a dynastic state that organized an efficient fiscal bureaucracy to finance military expansion. In other contexts, Sweden’s representative institutions of the eighteenth century have been an example of participatory or even proto-democratic forms of government. However, the two periods have rarely been compared to explain similarities and differences, or why the first period transformed into the second. This book takes a holistic approach to the period 1538–1810, explaining how and why the shifting regimes influenced political and social development.

The analysis shows the uneven character of the ongoing struggle between Sweden’s power elites and social groups demanding political inclusion. The ideal balance between a strong state and an organized society proved hard, if not impossible, to realize in the early modern period. Democratization in Sweden continued to be an uneven process well into the twentieth century.

Den här boken handlar om sex regimskiften i det tidigmoderna Sverige mellan 1500 och 1810, formativa moment då det rådande styrelseskicket utmanades och ersattes av något annat – en ny politisk regim. Med utgångspunkt i både historia och samhällsvetenskap presenteras en ny tolkning av Sveriges tidigmoderna politiska historia. Först analyseras händelseförloppet vid varje regimskifte och de viktigaste politiska aktörernas drivkrafter och motiv identifieras. Konsekvenserna och effekterna av varje regimskifte förklaras med hjälp av tre analytiska nyckelbegrepp: statskapacitet, opartiskhet och politiskt deltagande. Därefter jämförs de olika regimskiftena och dess långsiktiga effekter på statsbildning och demokratisering diskuteras. Hur och på vilka sätt påverkade de turbulenta regimskiftena Sveriges senare utveckling till en modern demokratisk stat?

Sveriges konfliktfyllda historia är relevant för att förstå statsbildningsprocessen i det tidigmoderna Europa. I komparativa studier lyfts 1500-talets Sverige fram som en pionjär; en dynastisk stat som organiserade en effektiv byråkrati för att finansiera militär expansion. I andra sammanhang har Sveriges representativa institutioner under 1700-talet varit ett exempel på politiskt deltagande eller till och med tidiga demokratiska reformer. De två perioderna har dock sällan jämförts för att förklara likheter och skillnader, eller varför den första perioden övergick i den andra. Boken Shifting regimes tar ett helhetsgrepp på perioden 1538–1810 och förklarar hur och varför de skiftande regimerna påverkade den politiska och sociala utvecklingen.

Analysen visar hur ojämn kampen mellan Sveriges makteliter och sociala grupper som krävde politisk inkludering var. Den ideala balansen mellan en stark stat och ett organiserat samhälle visade sig vara svår, för att inte säga omöjlig, att förverkliga under den tidigmoderna perioden. Demokratiseringen i Sverige fortsatte att vara en ojämn process långt in på nittonhundratalet.

 When Queen Christina of Sweden abdicated the throne in 1654, she left her successor Charles X Gustav a strong position vis-à-vis the aristocracy and the Swedish Riksdag. The offspring of the new King were given hereditary rights, but his other relatives were cut off from the royal family tree. This contribution argues that this was at least partly the result of a conscious effort on the part of the Council and Riksdag to limit the power of the royal family, and that many wished to avoid the bloody internecine feuds of the Vasa family. This contribution investigates the discussions in the Riksdag concerning non-ruling royals in order to further understand the ideological support for, and resistance to, royal power. A new periodisation of Swedish early modern history from a dynastic perspective is also suggested. Theoretically, the contribution relies on prospect theory and the political philosophy of Hobbes in its analyses.

Under 2023 uppmärksammar Sveriges Riksdag 500 år av riksdagshistoria, samt att det är 40 år sedan riksdagen flyttade tillbaka till husen på Helgeandsholmen efter tolv år i Kulturhuset vid Sergels Torg.  Därför släpper riksdagen nu boken Riksdagen i tid och rum – historien, husen och arbetsplatsen. I denna rikt illustrerade volym görs spännande nedslag i riksdagens historia. Människorna, husen – och den samtida politiken skildras på ett lättillgängligt sätt.  Läsaren tas med till olika nutida riksdagsmiljöer och får inblick i det maskineri som får dagens riksdag att fungera. Dessutom skildras riksdagsjournalisternas vardag och beslutet om att bygga om husen på Helgeandsholmen – trots att ett förslag om nybygge segrade i en arkitekttävling 1970. Därtill presenteras rika smakprov på den varierade konst som ryms såväl inne i riksdagens hus som på dess väggar.

In this chapter I account for the evolution of the Swedish political system during the early modern period up to the early 1720s, with special attention to the period 1650--1723. The period was characterized by a strong growth in state power, facilitated, I argue, by the rulers’ ability to play out Commoners and Nobility against each other. But the political revolution in the years 1718-1723 meant that royal absolutism was replaced with a constitutionalist system in which the Swedish Diet, the Riksdag, ruled supreme. I claim that the reason for this change was the fact that two of the Commoner estates, the Clergy and the Burghers defected to the constitutionalist position of the Nobility. Due to their ability to ally both with the Nobility on the one hand, and the Peasantry on the other, I will refer to them collectively as ‘the middle estates’. The third commoner estate, the Peasantry, remained largely royalist, and thus kept what I will here call the populist option open to the monarchs. The rulers of Sweden could thus choose between relying on support from commoners and lesser nobles on the one hand (the populist option), and on the aristocracy through opting for constitutionalist power-sharing on the other. The emergence of constitutionalism and greater political strength in the Commoner estates during this period is illustrated by cases from the entire period.

In this chapter I describe the evolution of the peasant estate of the Swedish Diet, the Riksdag, during the early modern era. First, the question of why a peasant estate arised in the Riksdag, when it is absent in virtually all other representative assemblies in premodern times. In doing so I compare Sweden with the neighbouring and culturally similar kingdom of Denmark, which briefly had peasant representation but then abolished it. In Sweden, but not in Denmark, a substantial portion of the peasantry, up to half of it, was independent of any feudal lord and dominated local politics in large parts of Sweden. There were also contingent reasons for the difference between the Scandinavian kingdoms. The contentious politics of the 1400’s and the 1500’s caused political actors to seek support from the peasants, during the former century as soldiers and during the latter as political supporters in the Riksdag. Above all, the kings sought support from the peasants against overmighty nobles. These developments had no parallel in Denmark.

Second, the development of the peasant estate during the period 1617-1718 is described. During this period Sweden emerged as a great power in Northern Europe. The estate of peasants was disadvantaged by its low status, the lack of organization and its representatives’ inexperience and lack of education. Nevertheless, it was instrumental in curbing the meteoric rise of noble power during this era. And the peasant representation was highly valued by the peasants because of the possibility of presenting grievances to the king.

Third, the continued evolution of the estate during the parliamentary rule of the period 1719-1772 is described. During this period, the Riksdag ruled supreme, and the political skills of the peasant representatives grew immensely. And the general peace and low taxes of the era contributed to the emergence of a rich, confident upper crust of peasant-farmers. However, they were still excluded from the most important political arena, the Secret Committee, which contributed to the widespread resentment of this system among the peasantry.

At last, I discuss the legacy of the peasant estate and its importance for the political culture of modern Sweden

In this chapter I analyze the process during which the Swedish early modern state abolished the feudal privileges of the Ängsö estate, situated in central Sweden. The privileges of the lords of Ängsö were very extensive by Swedish standards, and included judicial, clerical and fiscal advantages enjoyed by few, if any, other Swedish aristocrats. When these privileges were challenged by the Crown during the era of Caroline absolutism in the late 1600’s and early 1700’s the power relations changed dramatically on the estate. Even though the king’s officials were vested with great authority, they often needed help from subjects of Ängsö in order to claim the Crown’s rights. In some cases the confrontations were quite violent, as when the lord Sparre tried to evict the parson from the parish church of Ängsö. Nevertheless, his subjects supported their parson. The benefits for the subjects of the “conquest” seem to have been mixed, and many aspects of life on the estate stayed more or less the same.