This report explores reception policies, practices and humanitarian responses to the current refugee crisis in Sweden, focusing on the aftermath of 2015 unprecedented refugee migration, and also providing a brief historical perspective. Sweden has been known as one of the most generous countries in terms of welcoming refugees and providing an easy path to citizenship but its migration and reception policy has taken a ‘restrictive turn’ in recent years. The refugee crisis in 2015 has not only opened the window for ‘a major policy shift’ and ‘historical’ legislative changes to the Swedish migration and reception policy but also impacted the social, economic and political sphere instigating anti-immigrant sentiments. To significantly reduce the numbers of asylum seekers, Sweden has taken a series of temporary measures including changes in the Reception of Asylum Seekers Act (LMA) and a new Temporary Law (2016) reducing its asylum standards to the minimum standards of EU law. Under this temporary law, everyone who applies for and is given asylum receives a temporary residence permit, at the same time making family reunification extremely difficult. Although the numbers of asylum seekers decreased remarkably in the last three years, the government had not lifted the restrictive measures thus leading to asylum seekers experiencing difficult reception conditions. Current Swedish reception conditions can be best described with the word ‘uncertainty’ due to the lengthy reception period. It can be strongly argued that during the 2015 refugee influx the country received more refugees than it could have absorbed and managed which ultimately posed profound challenges at policy, administrative and implementation level. When it comes to reception practice, the approach of the Swedish government is more one of centralised dictating to the regional and municipal level, where the state is the main actor. The Swedish reception system, after the mass migration of refugees, encountered major problems providing accommodation, healthcare, services and allowances and early access to education and the labour market. In many dimensions of reception these limitations continue to exist.