On 13 July 2026, the new “good conduct requirement” in the Swedish Aliens Act entered into force. The main purpose of the new legislation is to create more possibilities for removing foreign nationals from the country on account of shortcomings in their conduct and way of life. It is part of the current government’s drive to make migration policy as strict as possible, and raises significant concerns as regards legal certainty, predictability and differential treatment between groups.

A Familiar Concept

Put briefly, the new legislation on conduct (“vandel”) primarily entails that deficient conduct carries greater weight than before when applications for residence permits are assessed; that deficient conduct can serve as grounds for revoking a residence permit; and that it carries greater weight than before when applications for permanent residence permits are assessed. It also becomes easier to refuse entry to third-country nationals and their family members on the basis of anticipated future flaws in their conduct.

The new legislation does not introduce an entirely new concept into Swedish migration law. Requirements relating to a foreign national’s way of life and conduct have previously applied when assessing applications for residence permits or permanent residence permits. To some extent, it has also been possible to take these aspects into account when revoking a residence permit. A stricter conduct requirement was also recently introduced into the Swedish Citizenship Act. Under the rules in force until 13 July 2026, however, only criminal offences, or closely related circumstances, were regarded as shortcomings in a person’s way of life capable of affecting a foreign national’s right to remain in Sweden. The amendment that has now entered into force means that a person’s conduct – in practice, deficiencies in a person’s conduct – will play a greater role in the examination of matters concerning residence permits. This occurs chiefly because, first, a wider range of circumstances beyond criminal offences can now be regarded as deficiencies in a person’s conduct and, second, because conduct is made into an independent ground for assessment both in applications for residence permits and in matters concerning revocation.

Defining Deficient Conduct

Of central importance in this context, then, is the interpretation of what can constitute such deficiencies in a person’s conduct within the meaning of the Aliens Act, in a manner that becomes relevant to applications for residence permits or the revocation of previously granted residence permits. However, the Aliens Act itself, neither now nor previously, provides any definition of what the concept covers. Instead, the government states in its bill that a requirement of good conduct essentially means living “in an honest and orderly manner” (Chapter 6). The circumstances which, in addition to criminal offences, are to be regarded as deficient conduct include failure to comply with regulatory requirements (such as disregarding decisions of public authorities or improperly exploiting the Swedish welfare system), dishonest means of subsistence, unpaid debts, threats to public order and security (such as association with criminal or extremist organisations), criminally punishable statements, and breaches of certain prohibitions, such as contact bans.

The government bill emphasises that, to be regarded as deficient conduct, the conduct in question must typically indicate a clear unwillingness to fulfil one’s obligations or a clearly inadequate respect for shared societal rules. Trivial instances of misconduct do not suffice. Account must also be taken of circumstances such as mental ill health and various forms of disability and, where the person concerned is a child, the best interests of the child. Furthermore, a proportionality assessment must be carried out, meaning, among other things, that the stronger a person’s ties to Sweden, the more serious the deficiency in that person’s conduct must be in order to justify refusing or revoking a residence permit. Generally speaking, more is also required to revoke a residence permit that has already been granted than to refuse a new application. The absence of a clear definition of “vandel” places a heavy burden of responsibility on the Migration Agency and the migration courts as they interpret and apply the provisions.

The Role of EU Law

The tightened requirements of good conduct in the cases mentioned above generally do not apply to residence permits based on Sweden’s obligations under EU law or international law. Instead, they target residence permits based on national rules. For example, the conduct requirement does not apply when examining residence permits based on the Qualification Regulation, or applications for family reunification falling within the scope of the Family Reunification Directive. Furthermore, the legislation separately introduces the possibility of revoking certain EU-law-based residence permits (under the Family Reunification Directive and for foreign nationals with long-term resident status in another member state) where the person concerned poses a threat to public order and security.

The new requirement of good conduct must be seen in the light of the Swedish government’s drive to pursue a restrictive migration policy. A restrictive migration policy is one of the key areas of cooperation between the conservative-liberal government coalition and their support party, the right-wing populist Sweden Democrats. The scope for action is admittedly constrained by Sweden’s obligations under EU law and international law, but the government has made clear that Swedish migration law should not, in any respect, be more generous than what these international commitments require. The “good conduct requirement” is one of several measures taken to realise the restrictive policy; others include abolishing the possibility to apply for a permanent residence permit for everyone having been granted a temporary residence permit on asylum-related grounds and introducing more restrictive conditions for labour migration. In the government bill it is held that the new legislation responds to a matter of “considerable public interest”, namely to increase control of whether foreign nationals living in Sweden do so honestly, lawfully, and without undermining society and its cohesion – in other words, ensuring that migrants living in Sweden are “good migrants”, and that those who are not can be removed.

A Lack of Clarity

The new “good conduct requirement” has attracted extensive criticism from civil society organisations, academia, the Equality Ombudsman, and the Council on Legislation. This criticism has concerned, among other things, the lack of clarity as to which requirements actually apply (where the line for deficient conduct is actually drawn), a lack of predictability and legal basis, the fact that a conduct requirement applying to some residents of Sweden but not others creates inequality, how statements are to be treated, and retroactive application of the new provisions. The following sections offer reflections on some of the concerns raised.

The absence, within the Aliens Act itself, of a clear definition of what can constitute deficient conduct is problematic in several respects. As the Council on Legislation has also pointed out, it becomes difficult for a person to understand, from the wording of the law alone, which conduct might have negative consequences for them in this context. This creates uncertainty as to what actually applies for individuals who are, or may become, subject to conduct assessments. For authorities and courts, the absence of a clear definition entails a risk of substantial differences in interpretation between individual cases. It also means that, in practice, the preparatory works, rather than the primary source of law – the statutory text – come to govern the outcome. This raises questions of both legal certainty and predictability, both of which are fundamental principles of a state governed by the rule of law.

The uncertainty as to what actually constitutes deficient conduct, and as to how the extent or severity of any deficiency is to be assessed – what, in more concrete terms, does it actually mean to show a clearly inadequate respect for shared societal rules? – also risks having a bearing on the proportionality assessment in individual cases, since this requires weighing a person’s ties to Sweden (including family ties) against the degree of their deficient conduct. The right to private and family life according to the European Convention on Human Rights can only be limited if the limitations are proportionate in relation to the aim pursued. The increased focus on “good conduct” as a condition for a foreign national to be able to move to or remain in Sweden could, as argued, for example, by the Swedish Institute for Human Rights, have disproportionate effects on an individual’s possibility to exercise their right to private and family life. It is thus questionable whether the new legislation fulfils the minimum standard established by the ECHR.

Freedom of Expression and Other Inequalities

Another concern raised not least by civil society organisations is the lack of clarity as to the extent to which statements can play a role in assessing what constitutes deficient conduct. Although the government notes in the bill that only statements punishable by law, such as unlawful threats or incitement against an ethnic or national group, can independently amount to an example of deficient conduct, it is not clearly ruled out that statements that are not criminalised can be weighed into an overall assessment of a person’s conduct. Critics argue that this could potentially include, for example, politically sensitive statements, the lack of clarity having the effect that foreign nationals resident in Sweden may come to feel restricted in the exercise of their statutory freedom of expression.

The new legislation also means that persons holding residence permits based on EU law find themselves in a more favourable position in this respect than persons whose residence permits are based on national law, for example on grounds of employment or ties to persons falling outside the scope of the Family Reunification Directive. In this way, a distinction is drawn not only between Swedish citizens and non-citizens as regards expectations concerning way of life and conduct, but also between different categories of foreign nationals. The same behaviour can therefore lead to entirely different consequences depending on who you are, which is problematic from the standpoint of the principle of equality before the law as enshrined in Chapter 1, Section 9 of the Swedish Constitution.

The Signal is Loud and Clear

The new requirement of good conduct in the Swedish Aliens Act is yet another building block in the current government’s drive to pursue as restrictive a migration policy as possible. The restrictive policy can be seen as serving two interconnected purposes: increasing the state’s capacity to remove more people from Sweden, and sending the message to those considering coming to Sweden that different standards of conduct apply depending on whether one is a Swedish citizen or not, even if, in the latter case, one already lives there and might have done so for a long time. Simply put, more is required in terms of conduct from non-citizens than from Swedish nationals, but what actually constitutes “deficient conduct” remains far from clear. The signalling effect of such priorities should not be underestimated, nor should the challenges this new legislation – and other legislation with the same aim – pose to core principles such as proportionality, foreseeability, and legality. The signal sent is, probably, the one sought after; that Sweden no longer is as welcoming as it previously has been. As regards core challenges to core rule of law principles, it seems the state’s interest in controlling and reducing migration currently overrides all other concerns.