Everyone will probably be given healthcare at some point in life, and might ask themselves how and why the healthcare is distributed the way it is in Swedish society. I also believe this is a matter where one would like the distribution of healthcare to be just. When I have read about different distribution theories, I have noticed similarities between the healthcare in Sweden and Rawls theory of justice, and the aim of this paper is to compare the Swedish ethical consideration on healthcare distribution with Rawls’s ideas. I find the three ethical principles stated by the Swedish Health Care and Medical Priorities Commission conform quite well with Rawls’s two principles of justice. They agree on equal healthcare distribution of resources on a population scale and that the ones in most need should be prioritised. Although, Rawls and Norman Daniels believe that only the equal opportunity to healthcare in order to strive for one’s life plans is valued, while the ethical principle of Swedish healthcare also adds an egalitarian adjustment of resources to people not living healthy. Normans’ interpretation of Rawls ideas argues to elevate individuals’ health to what is thought of as normal biological functioning, while my interpretation of Swedish ethical principles do not forbid elevating beyond the normal functioning. It might be impossible to make an ideal distribution of healthcare completely just, but I believe the Swedish healthcare distribution would be more just if it adheres more to Rawls’s principle of justice.