The most important argument for NATO membership is that Sweden's security policy situation has deteriorated sharply after Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the Russian government's demands for a veto over neighboring countries' security policy choices.

Sweden's need for protection within a defense alliance has increased, according to NATO supporters.

Fast process is questioned

Opponents, however, question why this process must go so fast?

Advocates of NATO believe that the security policy situation is urgent and that Sweden must therefore act quickly.

Another important explanation is that Finland is pushing, which puts pressure on the Swedish government to follow suit.

The Finnish government believes that Swedish and Finnish NATO membership will increase stability in the region.

This is also the most common argument from Swedish NATO supporters - "a NATO membership increases Sweden's security".

It is also important, they say, that Sweden and Finland take this step together due to the extensive security policy cooperation between the countries.

Defense guarantees - security or risk

NATO's mutual guarantee clause has a deterrent effect on a potential attacker.

Anyone who attacks Sweden would risk ending up in war with 30 western countries, including the United States.

The clause on mutual defense guarantees is also used by NATO opponents.

They warn that Swedish soldiers in the future will be sent to distant conflicts that do not affect Sweden at all.

Critics of NATO also believe that continued freedom of alliance is the best way to promote long-term relaxation and peace and that freedom of alliance creates better conditions for Sweden to pursue an independent foreign policy.

Nuclear weapons hot topic

Nuclear weapons are another contentious issue linked to Swedish NATO membership.

Nuclear weapons are the ultimate tool in NATO's deterrence.

As a member of NATO, you enjoy this protection.

But Swedish politicians, not least on the left, have long been involved in disarmament issues and for many it is therefore unacceptable to take the step into an alliance that is ultimately based on nuclear deterrence.

As a member of NATO, it would also be more difficult for Swedish governments and politicians to pursue issues related to nuclear disarmament.

Another question is whether NATO's nuclear weapons can be stored on Swedish territory, an argument that is often put forward by NATO opponents.

Here, however, it should be remembered that several other NATO countries have been granted exemptions.

Company with Hungary, Turkey and the United States

It is also about what company Sweden gets in NATO.

The alliance has 30 members, but criticism from NATO opponents is directed at countries such as Hungary and Turkey.

This is often highlighted by critics who do not want to see Sweden in a military alliance with a country like Turkey, with an authoritarian presidential regime and lack of rule of law.

Donald Trump is another argument used by NATO opponents.

How much can one trust NATO if Trump is re-elected as US President?

The question is, however, how much it differs from the current situation in that Sweden already bases a large part of its security policy on cooperation with the United States and a hope that the United States will stand up if Sweden is attacked.

EU as an alternative

EU defense cooperation has also been raised as an alternative to NATO membership.

The Treaty of Lisbon contains provisions that EU countries must assist each other in the event of a military attack, but they are not as sharply worded as in the NATO Charter.

In addition, many EU countries have long been members of NATO and have so far had a limited interest in building a parallel defense organization within the EU.