Analysis: Here's Where Parliamentary Candidates Stand on Animal Rights

A ban on factory-farmed chickens, cameras in slaughterhouses, and an end to fur farming. Ahead of the election, 181 candidates for the Riksdag were asked to take a stance on ten specific animal rights issues—and their answers reveal both broad commitment and significant differences among the candidates.

Animal Rights has reviewed the candidates’ campaign promises ahead of the September 13 parliamentary election. Of the 181 respondents, 178 state that they intend to work toward strengthening animal welfare if elected. All current parliamentary parties and congressional districts are represented among the responses.

From caged hens to slaughterhouses

The candidates were asked to take a stance on ten reforms. These include, among other things, a ban on turbo-chick production, cage rearing, and fur farming; an end to the mass culling of male chicks; animal-free research; and strengthened animal welfare measures during slaughter.

The strongest support is for a ban on fur farming and cage rearing, as well as more far-reaching animal welfare legislation within the EU. The least support is for calls for a dedicated minister for animal welfare and a significant reduction in meat consumption.

There are also SD candidates among the respondents

Candidates from the Sweden Democrats are also included in the material. Among them are Stina Isaksson in Halland County, which, according to the summary, supports eight out of ten issues, and Ida Kors in Jönköping County, who supports five.

At the same time, the responses show why this analysis should be read at the candidate level. The scores indicate how many of Animal Rights Sweden’s ten reform proposals each individual candidate has stated they are prepared to support if elected to the Riksdag.

Voters can evaluate the candidate

The survey is based on responses from individual candidates. Djurens Rätt invited the parties represented in the Riksdag to have the top five candidates in each electoral district respond, a limitation that the organization states was necessary to make the survey feasible.

For those who prioritize animal welfare, this summary makes it possible to compare the candidates’ specific positions before Election Day. A candidate with a score of 10 out of 10 has endorsed all of the proposals, while a lower score means that fewer of the proposals have received support.

Parties not represented in the Riksdag were not consulted

One important limitation is that Djurens Rätt invited only the established parliamentary parties. Candidates from parties not represented in Parliament were therefore not given the opportunity to answer the ten questions, and their absence should not be interpreted as meaning that they lack an animal welfare policy.

Alternativ för Sverige emphasizes Swedish animal welfare standards and opposition to imports produced under less stringent requirements, while Medborgerlig Samling seeks to reduce the regulatory burden without lowering animal welfare standards. Several other smaller parties have not provided clear answers regarding the ten questions posed by Animal Rights Sweden. Consequently, the data does not provide a fair, direct comparison between parties in the Riksdag and those outside it.