<p>A new reform of immigration in Sweden was introduced in 2006. This implied both a new decision hierarchy and process routine for dealing with asylum-related cases. Furthermore, a new Aliens’ Act came into force. The purpose of the changes was to strengthen the principle of law and order. The Swedish Migration Board, as the authority responsible for immigration cases, has employed Litigation Officers for the Administrative Procedure Unit. The Officers’ task is to reconsider verdicts in asylum cases and represent the authority on personal proceedings in the courts. Proceedings are a new occurrence in the asylum process.</p><p>The object of this study is the Litigation Officers and how they act as executers of political decisions. The following two questions are precisely defined:</p><p>i) Under which conditions do the Litigation Officers carry into effect the new directions and rules concerning the principle of strengthened law and order?</p><p>ii) How much freedom of action do they have when discharging their official duties?</p><p>Three theories are discussed related to the subject of the study. The first is about the forms of parliamentary steering of the society. The second theory discusses two perspectives of officers’ freedom of action. Finally, the third theory is about the characteristics of conditions necessary for a successful parliamentary steering.</p><p>In order to answer the questions, six Litigation Officers working in different Administrative Procedure Units in Sweden were interviewed. The investigations showed that the officers were both qualified and willing to carry into effect the directions and rules of the principle of strengthened law and order, but were hindered in their work by serious deficiencies of the Aliens’ Act. The investigation also showed that Litigation Officers were satisfied with their freedom of action when discharging their official duties. They experienced a little more freedom in the procedural part of their work. On the other hand, they felt more limited in interpreting the law of the Aliens’ Act. Otherwise the officers adhered to guidelines in being executers of political decisions.</p>

A new reform of immigration in Sweden was introduced in 2006. This implied both a new decision hierarchy and process routine for dealing with asylum-related cases. Furthermore, a new Aliens’ Act came into force. The purpose of the changes was to strengthen the principle of law and order. The Swedish Migration Board, as the authority responsible for immigration cases, has employed Litigation Officers for the Administrative Procedure Unit. The Officers’ task is to reconsider verdicts in asylum cases and represent the authority on personal proceedings in the courts. Proceedings are a new occurrence in the asylum process. The object of this study is the Litigation Officers and how they act as executers of political decisions. The following two questions are precisely defined: i) Under which conditions do the Litigation Officers carry into effect the new directions and rules concerning the principle of strengthened law and order? ii) How much freedom of action do they have when discharging their official duties? Three theories are discussed related to the subject of the study. The first is about the forms of parliamentary steering of the society. The second theory discusses two perspectives of officers’ freedom of action. Finally, the third theory is about the characteristics of conditions necessary for a successful parliamentary steering. In order to answer the questions, six Litigation Officers working in different Administrative Procedure Units in Sweden were interviewed. The investigations showed that the officers were both qualified and willing to carry into effect the directions and rules of the principle of strengthened law and order, but were hindered in their work by serious deficiencies of the Aliens’ Act. The investigation also showed that Litigation Officers were satisfied with their freedom of action when discharging their official duties. They experienced a little more freedom in the procedural part of their work. On the other hand, they felt more limited in interpreting the law of the Aliens’ Act. Otherwise the officers adhered to guidelines in being executers of political decisions.