Independent thesis Advanced level (professional degree), 20 credits / 30 HE credits
This thesis examined the conflict between Sweden's constitutional protection of freedom of expression and the European Union's framework for data protection under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The Swedish media constitutions provide strong, categorical protection for certain online databases through the "database rule" and the system of publication certificates, effectively shielding them from external regulation.
In contrast, EU data-protection law is grounded in fundamental rights and required a case-by-case proportionality assessment when balancing privacy against freedom of expression. This methodological difference creates a structural conflict, particularly in relation to commercial search services, such as Lexbase and MrKoll that collect and republish personal data, including sensitive information such as criminal records.
The thesis analyses this conflict using both the legal dogmatic method and the EU legal method, focusing on the principle of the primacy of EU law. It demonstrated that the Swedish system's categorical exemption is difficult to reconcile with the GDPR's requirement for individual balancing and effective protection of data-subject rights.
The findings indicate that individuals are, in practice, deprived of key rights such as erasure and effective remedies under the current Swedish framework. Recent case law, administrative developments, and pending proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union suggest that Swedish law must adapt to ensure compliance with EU requirements.
The thesis concludes that a shift from categorical protection towards a proportionality-based approach is necessary to resolve the conflict and align Swedish law with the EU legal order.
2026.