The following thesis examines the accountability process in relation to Swedish national crises during the time period of 2009-2017. The aim of the study is to identify how and to what extend accountability has been claimed when our elected officials and public servants don’t act legitimate in times of distress. Svedin identifies through her longitudinal study of the Swedish accountability processes during the period of 1931-2005 that Sweden is somewhat of a mystery. This has to do with the fact that Sweden is a perfect example of a refined administrative state with good mechanisms for claiming accountability but rarely uses these. This under usage has resulted in a discrepancy and declining trust between those who govern and those who are being governed. This is partly due to a consensus prone political culture which doesn’t gladly point fingers at responsible individuals. However, other studies within the field has identified a change in the conditions for claiming accountability since the beginning of the 2000-century which makes it interesting to study the process over a longer period and on a larger number of crises after 2005.
Using the analytical framework of Svedin and a quantitative method based on a coding scheme this study found that the Swedish actors within the accountability process has not only increased their use of available mechanisms and structures but also partly taken new roads in their aim of claiming accountability. Furthermore, the study concludes that the theoretical framework of Svedin needs some refinement as an analytical tool due to its lack of ability to show the nuances in the accountability process. All in all, the study can identify a slight shift for the better in the negative trend in how the Swedish actors use the accountability mechanisms. However, only time will tell if the accountability process in Sweden will continue in this positive direction or fall back in to bad habits.