In search of a more restrictive asylum policy? Understanding the Swedish standpoint towards the Common European Asylum System

Abstract

The aim of this thesis is to investigate the motives of the Swedish political parties for pursuing supranational asylum policies in the European Union. Although Sweden generally disapproves of supranationality Sweden is one of the foremost advocators of the Common European Asylum System. This thesis seeks to investigate the motives of the Swedish political parties for pursuing this agenda by testing the applicability of three theories on migration policy harmonization in Europe; burden-sharing, venue-shopping and international solidarity, which have rarely been empirically applied. As the empirical knowledge of the political parties’ preferences towards the common asylum system is limited the preferences will be mapped out. The empirical analysis has been conducted using motive analysis and covers three policy cases from 1998-2009; the Schengen Convention, “The directive on mutual recognition of expulsion decisions” and the Stockholm Programme. The empirical analysis shows that the Social Democratic Party and the Moderate Party agree that asylum policy should be supranational and restrictive. The smaller parties prefer generous asylum policies but are divided on the supranational line were the Left Party and Green Party prefer intergovernmentalism. The motives of the Social Democratic Party and the Moderate Party can be explained by burden-sharing and venue-shopping. International solidarity is a motive for all the small parties while burden-sharing also plays a role for some of the centre-right parties.