The new matriarchy? Gender, representation and power in Sweden

Women have been the majority in Swedish higher education since the late 1970s. In the autumn term of 2023, women made up 61% of registered students and men 39%. The gap has widened: from just over 4 percentage points in 1977 to about 23 points in 2023 (UKÄ).

UKÄ’s overview gives 67% for women and 62% for men graduating within the normal study time in 2022/23. The overview does not specify a programme-level denominator here; this is not a comparison of individual ability.

But the lead is unevenly distributed. Women are 85% of nursing students and 86% on the social work programme, while the share of women on the five-year engineering (civilingenjör) programme was 32% in 2023 — up from 24% in 1997. Educational choices co-vary strongly with the gender-segregated labour market the rest of this analysis is about; which drives which is not settled by these figures.

The phrase "the new matriarchy" comes from the 2026 book of that name (Karneval) by Erik J. Olsson, professor of theoretical philosophy, and Catharina Grönqvist Olsson. According to the publisher's summary, the authors argue that women are a majority of employees in around 80% of public agencies, that the state therefore fails its own gender-equality objective of an even distribution of power, and that this numerical dominance affects how the state decides in areas such as defence, policing and the justice system.

The thesis thus has three parts: (1) a mapping of gender balance, (2) an interpretation that a numerical majority equals power, and (3) an assumption that gender balance changes state decisions. The three parts have very different evidentiary standing, and it is that difference this page tests.

The publisher’s figure of around 80% of agencies is presented as the authors’ mapping, not a reproduced register result. People and agencies are different denominators. That claim does not itself verify decision-making power or influence on decisions.

Here “matriarchy” denotes a thesis of overall female control over institutions, property and lineage. Representation in selected occupations or management positions does not test all these dimensions. This page’s statistics can neither establish nor exclude such overall control.

What can be established is narrower: in certain institutional environments — education, municipal welfare services, parts of the public administration — women are a numerical majority at management level too. In others — listed-company top management, professorships, construction — men remain in the majority. About capital ownership as such this page's data say nothing; they concern CEO, chair and board posts, not voting rights or equity stakes.

The headline is therefore a question. The analysis tests the claim against official statistics rather than confirming or dismissing it in advance.

Statistics Sweden's occupational register for 2024 shows that preschool teacher is the most female-dominated large occupation in Sweden: 62,280 women against 2,430 men, i.e. 96% women. Childcare workers are at 91%, assistant nurses in home care and elderly care at 87%, compulsory-school teachers at 74% and care assistants at 71%.

Among Sweden's 30 largest occupations, the gender balance was even (40/60) in only four. The skew runs both ways: 2% of carpenters were women, and 4% of vehicle mechanics and installation electricians.

These national occupational shares do not show the gender balance at an individual workplace or whom a particular child meets. They describe representation among employees, not the causes of educational or occupational choices.

It is in the municipal world that the picture of a female institutional majority is strongest. According to SKR's staff statistics for November 2025 there were just over 50,900 managers in municipalities and regions. In the municipalities, 73% of all managers were women. SKR’s population is monthly-paid staff covered by HÖK agreements, not all managers in Sweden.

Female dominance narrows up the hierarchy but does not disappear: 75% of first-line managers, 67% of middle managers and 56% of top managers in municipalities are women. In the regions, 54% of top managers are women.

In SKR statistics a manager has formal responsibility for operations, finance and personnel. Women’s share in these posts describes representation; it is not a weighted measure of budget authority, political mandate or each individual’s influence.

Two figures about the state are often used as if they contradicted each other. According to the Swedish Agency for Public Management (Statskontoret), women made up 53% of employees in the state sector in 2024 and men 47%; the share has stayed between 53% and 54% since 2021. That measures people across the state as a whole.

The publisher’s approximately 80% counts agencies with a female staff majority, whereas Statskontoret’s 53% counts people in the state sector in 2024. These are not directly comparable. The publisher’s agency list and weighting have not been reproduced here; agency shares cannot be calculated from the person total.

Statskontoret’s processing of Arbetsgivarverket data for agencies under the government in 2025 gives 66% women in general public administration and in social protection including healthcare, and 63% in leisure, culture and religion; 72% in defence are men. Both monthly-paid and hourly-paid staff are included. SCB’s separate BAS measure for employees in 2024 gives 75% women in municipalities and 78% in regions. Years and populations must be kept separate.

Higher education shows the opposite. Although women have long been the majority among students and doctoral candidates, 33% of professors were women and 67% men in 2024 (UKÄ/SCB). Professors are the academic category with the least even gender balance.

The trend points one way: the share of women professors has risen by 19 percentage points since 2001. Between 2023 and 2024 it stood still.

In 2024 women were 45% of early-career posts and 61% of adjunkt lecturers in the same UKÄ/SCB report. Differences between categories are not observed individual career paths; these cross-sections do not isolate a cohort effect.

After the 2026 election, 46% of members of parliament were women (162 of 349), as were 50% of regional councillors and 44% of municipal councillors (Swedish Gender Equality Agency). That is within or near the 40/60 interval normally used as a measure of even gender balance.

Women were 35% of municipal executive board chairs in 2023 in SCB’s indicator. Among chairs of parliament’s 15 committees, the share was 20% in SCB’s release of 5 November 2024. These are different roles and dates, not a common hierarchy or a measure of decision content.

Statistics Sweden's own conclusion in the 2024 edition was that gender equality had moved backwards in some areas rather than improving linearly. That is an important corrective to the assumption that the trend only runs one way.

AllBright’s Scandinavia report from November 2025 gives 36% women among board members and 11% among CEOs of Swedish listed companies. Norway has 41% women on listed-company boards. This is the report’s private survey of listed companies, not statistics on all businesses or owners.

CEO and board shares measure representation in posts. They do not show the gender balance of capital ownership, voting rights or actual capital allocation, and cannot decide the headline thesis on their own.

AllBright's figures are privately collected statistics, not official ones, and should be read as an industry survey rather than a register.

The identified sources support the reported distributions for their respective populations and years. They do not establish that a numerical majority itself gives overall institutional control, or that gender balance causes particular decisions.

Representation differs between the sectors shown: female majorities in several programmes, welfare occupations and municipal management groups; male majorities among professors and listed-company CEOs. This describes posts and employees, not the overall distribution of power in society.

Because both patterns exist at once, almost any single figure can be used as evidence for opposite theses. Those who want to show female dominance cite preschools and municipal managers; those who want to show male dominance cite listed-company CEOs and professorships. Both citations are correct and both are incomplete.

Competing explanations for the same distributions include educational and occupational choice, the sector structure of the labour market (welfare is publicly financed and female-dominated; capital-intensive industry is not), cohort effects in slow-turnover positions such as professorships, pay and working-time structures, and recruitment practices. This material cannot separate them, and no ranking between them follows from distribution figures.

Testing effects on decisions requires comparable decision situations, data on decision-makers and outcomes, and controls for mandate, legislation and time period. The sources used on this page do not perform that causal test. This is a limitation of these sources, not a claim that no relevant research exists.