Jehovah’s Witnesses and State Subsidies in Sweden. 1. The Historical Context

After twelve years of struggle, discrimination finally ended in 2019. However, the story did not conclude there.

By Massimo Introvigne

Novembre 17, 2025

Article 1 of 4.

Jehovah’s Witnesses evangelizing in Trosa, Sweden. Source: JW.org.

Sweden, long celebrated for its commitment to human rights and pluralism, now finds itself at the center of a troubling controversy: the exclusion of Jehovah’s Witnesses from state subsidies under a law that appears custom-tailored to deny them access. This exclusion, despite years of litigation and repeated rulings by Sweden’s highest courts finding the grounds for denial unfounded, raises serious questions about the country’s adherence to the principle of freedom of religion or belief. In this first article of a multi-part series, I examine the historical evolution of Sweden’s religious subsidy system and how Jehovah’s Witnesses became entangled in a bureaucratic and ideological struggle that continues to this day.

Until the turn of the millennium, Sweden maintained a privileged relationship with the Church of Sweden, which functioned as the state church. Funded directly through taxpayer money, the Church enjoyed exclusive recognition and support, a legacy of centuries-old Lutheran establishment. However, as Sweden’s population diversified and secularized, this arrangement came under scrutiny for violating principles of equality and religious neutrality.

In response, the Swedish government enacted reforms that culminated in 1998 and 1999 in three acts and one regulation: the Act on Faith Communities (SFS 1998:1593), the Act on Support to Faith Communities (SFS 1999:932), and the Regulation on State Subsidies to Faith Communities (SFS 1999:974). They opened the door for dozens of religious organizations to receive state grants, provided they met specific criteria. The Swedish Agency for Support to Faith Communities (SST) was created to advise the government on which groups qualified.

Yet, the path to inclusion was anything but smooth for Jehovah’s Witnesses, even though they had been present in Sweden since the late 19th century. March 13, 2000, marked a milestone: Jehovah’s Witnesses were officially registered as a religious community in Sweden—a prerequisite for receiving state grants. This recognition should have paved the way for equal treatment. Instead, it triggered a decade-long saga of refusals, appeals, and judicial rebukes.

On August 6, 2007, the Jehovah’s Witnesses submitted their first application for state grants to the Ministry of Culture. The SST, composed exclusively of representatives from the 24 already-approved religions, issued a negative opinion on February 20, 2008, citing the group’s political neutrality and sources that labeled them a “sekt” (a word closer in Swedish to the English “cult” than “sect,” although “kult” also exists in Swedish with an even more negative connotation).

On March 28, 2008, the Jehovah’s Witnesses responded, challenging the SST’s bias. However, on June 17, 2009, the Ministry of Culture rejected the application, citing that the group did not support Sweden’s “fundamental societal values.” A second refusal followed on December 10, 2009, despite a request for reconsideration.

On March 9, 2010, the Witnesses appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, which, on March 2, 2011, annulled both government decisions. The Court ruled that the state had failed to provide valid reasons and emphasized that governments must remain neutral and cannot assess religious doctrine.

Despite this clear directive, the government issued a third refusal on May 16, 2012, again citing the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ stance on not voting in elections. Another appeal followed, and on November 8, 2013, the Supreme Administrative Court reversed the decision, reaffirming that voting is a right, not an obligation, and that the state must not evaluate religious beliefs.

The Supreme Administrative Court in Stockholm. Credits.

From 2014 to 2016, Jehovah’s Witnesses submitted multiple inquiries and responses to new SST opinions, which now included criticism of their beliefs on blood transfusions, military neutrality, and exclusion of unrepentant members for grave sins. The SST relied on statements from former members, further deepening the perception of bias.

On January 28, 2016, the Ministry of Culture issued a fourth refusal, citing alleged risks to children due to the group’s stance on blood transfusions. The Supreme Administrative Court again intervened on 20 February 2017, ruling that Jehovah’s Witnesses’ beliefs on blood were not contrary to democratic values and ordering the government to reconsider.

Frustrated by the delays, Jehovah’s Witnesses sought damages from the Chancellor of Justice in April 2017, but were told the case was still pending. Finally, on October 24, 2019, the government reversed its position and approved state grants, acknowledging that the group contributes to Sweden’s fundamental values and plays an active role in society.

In January 2020, Jehovah’s Witnesses filed a second damages claim for the full 12 years of delay. On October 21, 2021, the Chancellor awarded 8.5 million SEK (nearly USD 1 million) for six of those years, citing the complexity of the case.

Yet the hostility did not end. On 23 February 2022, during a televised broadcast, the SST director and the Minister of Culture publicly stated that Jehovah’s Witnesses should not receive state grants due to their views on blood transfusions, homosexuality, and congregational discipline. The Minister even suggested amending the law to exclude them—despite multiple court rulings affirming their eligibility.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), in a decision dated 31 January 2023, struck the case from its docket, noting that the matter had been resolved in 2019. However, it awarded legal costs, implicitly recognizing the burden Jehovah’s Witnesses had endured.

The current situation is deeply troubling. Sweden’s government has introduced legislative changes with the explicit aim of excluding Jehovah’s Witnesses from future subsidies. This move, framed as a clarification of “democracy criteria,” is a targeted attack on a religious minority whose beliefs challenge mainstream norms but remain protected under international human rights law.

In the following article, we will examine this legislative campaign in detail, exploring how political rhetoric, media narratives, and institutional bias have converged to undermine religious freedom in a country that once prided itself on tolerance.

Source: bitterwinter.org