In Swedish schools, students have a statutory right to support if the need arises. According to The Education Act, the workflow with support measures can briefly be described as: if needs are noticed, then support measures in the form of additional adjustments must be made. If the additional adjustments are insufficient, the investigation of the needs for special support must be initiated, which may result in the establishment of an action program, that regularly must be followed up and evaluated. Between an external and an internal boundary that is between the Education Act and the school culture a so called Scope for Action (frirum) can be found, according to Berg (2003). Schools’ actor-preparedness (aktörsberedskap), that is prerequisites, affect how the Education Act according to the workflow with support measures is interpreted and put into practice. The purpose of this study is therefore to identify and examine the Scope for Action when it comes to workflow regarding support measures. To do this the perspectives of SENCOs (Special Educational Needs Coordinator) in Upper Secondary Schools will be collected through interviews. Berg’s (2003) Scope for Action Model (frirumsmodell) will be applied and used as a tool for interpretation and explanation of these interviews. Additionally, in the search for and interpretation of ‘frirummet’ Wall’s (2018) study of the Education Act from an administrative law perspective is used. The inquiries are therefore what the workflow in terms of support measures looks like from a special educator’s perspective, what characteristics and consequences of ‘frirummet’ that can be identified and what characterizes the actor-preparedness. The results point to a number of ways of utilizing the scope for Action, for example when it comes to acknowledge and identify needs, define and use of concepts, documentation practice and workflow according to support measures. In the structures and routines described by the SENCOs, expressions of Berg's (2003) actor-preparedness can be discerned to varying degrees. At the same time as the SENCOs' descriptions in many ways point to an aspiration for interprofessional collaboration and collective autonomy, there are also clear traces of specialization and individual autonomy. The question is whether the variation is due to possible ambiguity with associated interpretive space in the Education Act or to the schools actor-preparedness where resources could be a part. The results however show that how The Education Act is set to practice varies not only depending on how detailed the law is but also depending on local interpretations, conditions and decisions. The question of legal certainty therefore arises.