During the years 1994 and 2004, Sweden suffered two major international crisis that affected and challenged the crisis management in Sweden. This essay is based on Swedish crisis management of two national crises: the Estonia disaster 1994 and the Tsunami disaster in Southeast Asia 2004. The main question of the essay concerns the Swedish government´s crisis management during major crises and how the crisis management changed between and after 1994 and 2009. The main question is divided into three subqueries that leads the analysis. The questions are (1) What shortcomings were identified in the government´s crisis management work in connection with the two disasters? (2) What changes were made to crisis management policy after the two disasters? and (3) How can the crisis-inducing learning after the two disasters be interpreted/understood? The purpose of this essay is to find out the policy changes that took places after the two disasters, to find out if these crises have changed the work around crisis in Sweden or if the criticism levelled at the government after the Estonia disaster was the same after the tsunami disaster. The essay is based on a qualitative method that involves making a comparison between the two crises, by analysing material through state public investigations (SOU) and from the National Audit Office in Sweden. The conclusion from this essay is that the crisis management after the Estonia disaster did not result in any radical changes to improve the clear shortcomings of the crisis management. However, we were able to see that the changes the Swedish government talked about needed another major crisis, namely the tsunami disaster before the establishment of a crisis organization. Crisis management is constantly changing, albeit slowly. It is not possible for the Swedish government to wait for a new crisis to occur before the policy changes are implemented in crisis management.