Sweden has defended its decision to remove British citizens who applied late for post-Brexit residency, insisting that its migration authorities have correctly implemented the UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement despite growing criticism over cases involving long-term residents.
Swedish Migration Minister, Johan Forssell issued the defence on Wednesday in response to a parliamentary question concerning Joyce Thomas, a 78-year-old British widow who has been ordered to leave Sweden after living in the country for 21 years. Thomas has been instructed to leave Sweden by Tuesday, September 8, or face deportation and a possible ban from the Schengen area.
Her case has become one of several involving British citizens whose late applications for residency have been rejected by Sweden’s Migration Agency. Forssell said that Sweden’s approach had been reviewed at the European level and maintained that the country had fulfilled its obligations under the Brexit withdrawal agreement. “The Migration Agency has followed up on the application of the Withdrawal Agreement and the assessment is that Sweden has fulfilled its commitments,” Forssell said.
He added that this “assessment is shared by the Commission,” referring to the European Commission’s role in monitoring how EU member states implement the agreement.
The dispute centres on Sweden’s requirement that British citizens who were living in the country before the end of the Brexit transition period formally apply for documentation confirming their right to remain. Sweden was among 13 EU countries that adopted a system requiring eligible British nationals to submit formal applications following the UK’s departure from the European Union.
Some British citizens living in Sweden say they were unaware that they needed to make such an application. Thomas has said that her late husband contacted Swedish authorities to ask how Brexit would affect their right to remain in the country and was told that they did not need to take any action.
Her case has raised wider concerns among campaigners representing British nationals in Sweden, who argue that people who had already established their lives in the country should not lose their residency rights because they misunderstood or missed an administrative deadline.
The UK Foreign Office has raised Sweden’s handling of late applications several times through the Withdrawal Agreement’s specialised committee on citizens’ rights. The committee was established to monitor the implementation of the agreement and address issues affecting the rights of British and EU citizens following Brexit.
Wider Legal Question Remains Unresolved
David Milstead, who leads the grassroots organisation Brits in Sweden, said Forssell’s response was unsurprising but argued that the wider legal question remained unresolved.
“The government was hardly going to disown the decisions of [the Migration Agency] or the Swedish courts. The real question is whether Sweden’s approach is consistent with EU law and the [Withdrawal Agreement].”
David Milstead
He contrasted Sweden’s approach with the system used by the United Kingdom, where the Independent Monitoring Authority was established to independently oversee the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement’s citizens’ rights provisions.
According to Milstead, the European Commission has a corresponding responsibility to monitor how EU member states protect the rights guaranteed under the agreement. “The IMA has taken a much more robust approach,” he said, arguing that it was difficult to imagine the UK body accepting a policy similar to Sweden’s if it placed the rights of large numbers of successful late applicants at risk.
Milstead said that the issue should ultimately be resolved either through legal proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union or through measures designed to correct decisions that he considers unjust.
“Sweden’s approach now needs either to be tested before the European Court of Justice or addressed through measures that remedy the problem. That must include fixing unjust deportation decisions.”
David Milstead
The scale of the issue is reflected in official statistics. Eurostat data show that 2,490 UK nationals were ordered to leave Sweden between 2021 and 2025. According to an analysis by the UK Foreign Office, that represented 32.9% of the 7,565 UK nationals ordered to leave EU member states during the same period.
The Withdrawal Agreement was designed to protect the rights of British citizens who were legally resident in EU countries before the end of the transition period, as well as EU citizens living in the UK. While the agreement provides protections for eligible residents, implementation differs depending on whether countries use a declaratory system, under which rights exist automatically, or a constitutive system requiring residents to apply for formal status.
Sweden’s position has therefore become part of a broader debate over whether administrative requirements have adequately protected people who were entitled to remain but failed to complete the necessary paperwork on time. For British citizens facing removal, the consequences can be significant. Deportation may mean losing homes, social connections and established lives built over many years, while a Schengen ban could further restrict their ability to travel within much of continental Europe.
The Swedish government, however, maintains that its authorities have acted within the framework of the Withdrawal Agreement and that decisions are subject to Sweden’s legal and judicial processes.
As Thomas’s deadline approaches, her case has renewed attention on the treatment of British nationals who remained in Sweden after Brexit but failed to secure residency documentation within the required period. The disagreement now extends beyond individual deportation cases to a broader question over how the rights promised under the Brexit agreement should be protected when administrative deadlines are missed.
READ ALSO: COCOBOD Pays GH¢2.68bn to Complete 2026 DDEP Obligations, Clears GH¢162m Cocoa Bills
