This report examines the human rights and children’s rights implications of the COVID-19 responses in Sweden and Finland, focusing on the balance between conflicting constitutional and human rights and the national structures for civil society engagement during emergencies like the pandemic. Both countries faced the challenge of protecting public health during the pandemic; however, children, while not the most at risk of suffering from the virus itself, were significantly affected by the restrictions.

The purpose and scope of this report is twofold. First, it explores the views of human rights advocates regarding COVID-19 restrictions, particularly those imposed on educational institutions, such as the transition to distance learning, and assesses whether these measures had discriminatory effects on specific groups of children, including those from minority backgrounds. Second, it examines the role of civil society in decision-making during the pandemic. Both Sweden and Finland have a notable history of engaging civil society actors in policymaking, a relationship that has generally benefited all parties involved. However, it appears that some of these well-established structures for civil society engagement were undermined during the crisis.

Findings indicate that both Finnish and Swedish civil society actors faced challenges due to a lack of transparency in decision-making during the pandemic. In Finland, rapid legislative changes occurred without adequate public consultation, while Sweden’s reliance on existing legal frameworks limited opportunities for NGOs to voice their concerns. Most interviewees expressed understanding of the urgency faced by governments but noted that this led to inadequate engagement and reliance on information produced by state organs, which limited the possibilities for proactive human rights and children’s rights advocacy.

The paper also discusses the shortcomings of human rights impact assessments conducted by both governments. Interviewees noted that Finland’s focus on fundamental rights often overlooked international human rights perspectives, while Sweden’s minimal legislative changes resulted in insufficient documentation for assessing human rights implications. Furthermore, child impact assessments in the drafting phase were found to be lacking, with a tendency to ignore indirect and long-term impacts. Although the interviewees generally aligned with the restriction measures their respective governments resorted to, they noted that these measures led to structural discrimination against socio-economically disadvantaged children, who suffered disproportionately during the pandemic. The transition to remote learning in Finland raised concerns about the negative impact on children from immigrant backgrounds, who faced challenges related to language and access to information and support.

In conclusion, while some interviewees criticized their governments’ responses, most attributed the lack of civil society engagement to the urgency of the situation. The interviewees called for the integration of human rights and children’s rights perspectives into emergency planning and decision-making processes to ensure that the needs of vulnerable groups are adequately addressed, even in times of crisis. They also advocated for stronger institutional safeguards to protect human rights and the rights of the child during crises when broad civil society engagement is not possible.