While Sweden has long enjoyed a solid reputation for protecting weaker parties through a comprehensive welfare state and a labour market governed by collective bargaining, its system for enforcing these rights has rested upon the public authorities and the social partners rather than on judicial proceedings. Against this background, this article examines the legal avenues for bringing collective actions and obtaining collective redress before courts in social security and labour law cases in Sweden. It finds that the relevant legislation does not explicitly provide for collective redress in either field. Within social security law, collective access to court is practically excluded, whereas in labour law, the current procedural framework can only with difficulty be construed as lending itself to measures of collective redress, and then only with some significant legal and practical limitations. While indicative of the general situation as regards collective redress in Sweden, whose legislation on group actions has been criticised for its toothlessness and has been put to little practical use, this also suggests that the tradition of collectivism in the Swedish social security and labour market systems still does not translate into collectivism in judicial redress.

长期以来，瑞典在通过全面的福利国家和由集体谈判管理的劳动力市场保护弱势政党方面享有盛誉，但其执行这些权利的制度取决于公共当局和社会伙伴，而不是司法程序。在此背景下，本文探讨了在瑞典社会保障和劳动法案件中向法院提起集体诉讼和获得集体补救的法律途径。它发现相关立法没有明确规定在这两个领域中的集体补救。在社会保障法中，集体诉诸法院实际上被排除在外，而在劳动法中，目前的程序框架很难被解释为适用于集体补救措施，然后只有一些重大的法律和实践限制。尽管瑞典关于集体行动的立法因缺乏效力而受到批评并且几乎没有实际应用，但它表明了集体补救的总体情况，但这也表明瑞典社会保障和劳动力市场体系中的集体主义传统仍然没有转化为司法补救中的集体主义。