As Giota et al. (2023) assert, IQ levels have been used as a diagnostic tool with regard to placement in schools for pupils with ID. About 1–2.5% within a population have an IQ level between 50 and 70, which signifies mild ID, whereas only 0.3–0.5% have severe ID (an IQ below 50) (Gillberg and Söderström, 2003; Maulik et al., 2011). This may roughly correspond to the share of Swedish schoolchildren which may statistically belong to the compulsory school for pupils with ID (e.g., anpassad grundskola), whether as integrated in regular classes, which often is the case in smaller municipalities which have fewer schools and limited resources at their disposal, or in segregated settings (Giota et al., 2023; Swedish National Agency for Education, 2002; Swedish Schools Inspectorate, 2010). However, there are other diagnostic criteria than IQ, such as medical and social factors, and therefore the share might be slightly lower. In the school year 2023/2024, 1.4% of all schoolchildren are obtaining their education in schools for pupuls with ID (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2024c).

Hence, statistical rules of thumb may not always manifest themselves in simple and predictable ways. For example, what is considered the norm and what is considered non-normal in terms of intellectual faculties and behaviors may change over time (Giota et al., 2023; Isaksson and Lindqvist, 2015). When placement in compulsory schools for pupils with intellectual disabilities (which earlier were called särskolor in the Swedish context, e.g., Berthén, 2007) is considered, the municipality must have an active and continuous dialogue with legal guardians. Regarding children whose legal guardians have another mother tongue than Swedish, the municipality must offer an interpreter and, in all cases, provide clear information about the responsibilities (for the legal guardians) and consequences (for the child) that are connected to placement in such schools. In addition, the municipality where the child and its legal guardians live are responsible for conducting social, pedagogical, psychological and medical evaluations, involving workers with adequate competencies such as special teachers, psychologists, and doctors. The legal guardians are being constantly informed about the processes and evaluations and have a right to convey their opinions in the matter. In general, the legal guardians are mostly involved in the evaluation of their child from a social aspect. However, regarding the initiation of psychological and medical evaluations of a child, the legal guardians must give their explicit written consent. Hence, legal guardians may potentially prevent full evaluations from taking place. When children are 16 years old, they can decide for themselves whether they want to conduct an evaluation which may lead to placement in Upper Secondary School for Pupils with Intellectual Disabilities. At that level, it may function as a late selective mechanism for entry into special upper-secondary level education (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2023).

Giota et al. (2023) found a substantial increase of students with mild ID in Sweden in later cohorts such as those born in 2004. The total variation of prevalence rates of schoolchildren at the age of 13 with mild ID is between 2.74% in the 1980s and 3.41% in 2017. Moreover, the authors found a general trend toward teaching ID students in segregated settings. This echoes a recent descriptive report which stresses that the share of pupils with ID who are integrated in regular compulsory school classes has decreased from 10 to 9% (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2024d). Hence, regarding Swedish citizens who are (later) eligible for voting and in other ways partaking in a democratic society there is an increase of people with ID, which is also manifested in the share of the population (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2024c). Hence, the nexus between the education of ID pupils, curricular documents, and democratic processes is an important set of dimensions to consider.

Having discussed some of the core features of the Swedish school system in the context of ID pupils and related school types, we now turn to related studies on curricular and policy documents, both in the Swedish and international literature.

The Swedish school system, as well as the Nordic countries in general, have for several decades been characterized by ideals such as equity, inclusion, gender equality, and democratic humanism (Boman and Mosesson, 2023; Buli-Holmberg et al., 2022; Klang et al., 2019), as well as integration. Integration, in the context of schools for pupils/students with ID, refers to physical, social, and functional aspects. However, segregated integration refers to pupils with ID being taught in specialized schools, while integrated integration implies being taught in regular classes. The decisions in that regard are related to finding the most optimal learning contexts for everyone (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2022, pp. 19–20). In part, integration in the broader sense is also reflected in the increasing number of ID pupils in Sweden (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2024a).

Isaksson and Lindqvist (2015) examined policy documents in Sweden, covering the 1970s up until 2014. Their findings underline the salience of hegemonic intervention, which means that politicians and other actors of state bodies have implemented elements such as inclusivity within the education system at different time periods. More recently, inclusion of ID pupils has been underscored. Paradoxically, however, the opposite pattern has been the case in practice as more pupils are being taught in segregated settings. In addition, in the most recent decades earlier emphases such as on individual deficiencies among pupils are being reinvigorated within policy discourses. However, as the authors accentuate that hegemonic policy ideals might still be contested at the local level or in practice among teachers. Hence, “outdated” educational ideas are seldom or never completely reproduced in practice.

As for instance Klang et al. (2019) stress, teachers in mainstream teaching settings have higher aspirations for their students, including special needs students, compared to their counterparts in segregated settings. This may be overall beneficial for most students. On the other hand, teachers in segregated settings seem to offer more social support for the ID pupils.

As Göransson et al. (2022) underline, the compulsory School for Pupils with Intellectual Disabilities’ national curriculum contains elements that point to that education should stimulate curiosity, creativity and self-confidence, which corresponds to a learner-centered ideology. Advocates of the social reconstruction ideology believe that the main purpose of education is to contribute to a more equal and equitable society. Hence, among the ideological perspectives discussed by Göransson et al. (2022), democratic inclusion of pupils with ID overlaps the social reconstruction emphasis to the largest extent.

Hanreddy and Östlund (2020) emphasize that there are a host of social and socioeconomic benefits from integrated integration compared to being taught in segregated settings with alternative curricula (i.e., easier content and lower expectations). These findings generally echo those of for instance Göransson et al. (2022) and Giota et al. (2023). There are also many published studies on inclusion of pupils within the current education system in Sweden and elsewhere (e.g., Andersson et al., 2023; Göransson et al., 2011), as well as less curriculum-oriented research on ID pupils and special schools (e.g., Frostlund and Nordgren, 2024; Rendoth et al., 2024).

Yet, it is unclear how and to what extent ID pupils ought to be included as real or potential democratic citizens. Moreover, it is not clear how democratic inclusiveness is regarded within the frames of the national curriculum for pupils with ID such as Lgra22.

Simplican (2015) argues that prominent Western philosophers have failed to include people with ID in relation to their philosophical works on democratic citizenship and political equality. That may be because liberal philosophers, while focusing on equality, cherish rationality and intellectual prowess. The ideal within liberal political ideology is to become an enlightened societal agent with vast knowledge, reason capacity and appropriate values. In what follows we suggest that mainstream democratic theory, despite this serious deficiency, offers conceptual tools which are conducive for the study of the democratic inclusion of individuals with ID.

Democracy is defined by an equal distribution of political influence among the members of an inclusive demos (Dahl, 1989). Equal and inclusive political participation often serves as the point of reference for empirical studies of political behavior (Lijphart, 1997), mapping patterns of participation and explaining variation in participation between different social strata (individuals with ID are seldom included in these studies, however). Democratic inclusion, political equality, and the relation between democratic inclusion and political equality have also been major objects of study within democratic theory (e.g., Miller, 2020; Christiano, 2008; Hultin Rosenberg, 2019).

Theoretical studies of democratic inclusion have mainly focused on the spatial dimension of the scope of democratic inclusion (Beckman and Hultin Rosenberg, 2022). The main disagreement has concerned what type of relationship between the individual and the democratic state that gives the individual a justified claim to inclusion in the demos. Competing principles of democratic inclusion are distinguished by such relational requirements (Beckman and Hultin Rosenberg, 2022). The difference between the principles matters, for example regarding issues of voting rights for resident non-citizens and non-resident citizens. The democratic inclusion of individuals with ID does instead actualize the categorical dimension of the scope of democratic inclusion and the question of what is required to qualify as a democratic agent (Beckman and Hultin Rosenberg, 2022). These agency requirements are not as frequently discussed as relational requirements in the literature on democratic inclusion. Ability of democratic participation as a minimal requirement for democratic inclusion has garnered some attention, however (e.g., López-Guerra, 2014; Christiano, 2001; Munn, 2013; Nussbaum, 2009). Inability-based exclusion has been defended by democratic theorists (e.g., Christiano, 2001) and recognized in international human rights conventions. In General Comments No 25 from 1996, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights states that “established mental incapacity may be a ground for denying a person the right to vote” (HRC General Comment No. 25, 2016, p. 25). This position has been challenged by other democratic theorists arguing that inability is not a sufficient reason for exclusion of adult citizens (Mráz, 2020) as well as in more recent human rights conventions (UNCRPD, article 29). Focus should instead be on how to ensure political equality within an inclusive demos, whose members possess different intellectual and communicative abilities (Beckman, 2007). We adhere to this recent trend. As such, our position aligns with Taylor (2018), who emphasizes that the primary question should be how rather than if people with ID should be included in the knowledge communities in our societies.

However, conceptual and normative studies on political equality have mainly focused on political equality in the context of inequality in socio-economic resources (Rawls, 1999; Cohen, 2001) and not in the context of inequality of intellectual resources. An example is John Rawls who in A Theory of Justice and elsewhere (e.g., Rawls, 1999) defends a conception of political equality that parallels a more general equal opportunity principle that in tandem with the difference principle and the just savings principle constitute his second principle. Rawls offers a conception of political equality that requires “a fair opportunity to take part in and to influence the political process” (Rawls, 1999, 197). Citizens should not only “have the means to be informed about political issues” (Rawls, 1999, p. 198) and “be in a position to assess how proposals affect their wellbeing, and which policies advance their conception of the public good” (Rawls, 1999, p. 198). They should also “have a fair chance to add alternative proposals to the agenda for political discussion” (Rawls, 1999, p. 198). Equal opportunity in the political context (what Rawls refers to as fair value of political liberties) is, according to Rawls, achieved when “similarly endowed and motivated […] have roughly the same chance of attaining positions of political authority irrespective of their economic and social class” (Rawls, 1999, p. 197). Rawls’ conception of political equality effectively addresses political inequalities that trace back to socio-economic inequalities. Political inequalities between citizens that are “differently endowed” are left unaddressed, however. The distinction between “natural” and “social” inequalities underlying Rawls’ conception of political equality prevents it from fully addressing salient inequalities in the political sphere. The general notion that political equality requires something more than equal political rights can still serve as the normative point of departure. Political equality requires that every member of the demos has real opportunities to participate in democratic decision-making procedures (i.e., including people with ID).

The school is the most important institution when it comes to ensuring that all members of the demos possess the abilities, skills, and knowledge required for effective political participation. It is pertinent to examine how for instance learning objectives are framed among citizens with a neurodiverse profile, namely ID pupils in the current research context. As Alshoufani asserts (Roth et al., 2022), neurodiverse students may reflect on their own atypical profiles in society, such as why they are placed in special schools instead of regular schools and have a partly different curriculum to follow. The existence or non-existence of such a critical introspection within the frames of the curricular documents might be an important feature within a critical examination of steering documents such as Lgra22.

Lastly, Schiro’s (2013) curricular concepts are of significance as they provide different categorizations of expressions and contents within Lgra22 and its various parts and sections. Schiro’s typologies include, for example, social efficiency, learner-centered and social reconstruction ideologies. Social efficiency focuses on the current and future participation in society in terms of being useful citizens and workers, partly through preparatory schoolwork of a variety of kinds. Learner-centered approaches aim at the cultivation of a pupil’s personal growth and confidence, while social reconstruction emphasizes the improvement of society such as through fostering tolerance, human rights, inclusion and democracy. According to Göransson et al. (2022), these themes could be merged within curricular documents such as those for special needs classes and ID pupils in Sweden. That may, in turn, signify interdiscursivity (Fairclough, 2003). As the knowledge and skills of citizens of pupils are important in school subjects such as civic education (Jurs et al., 2022) it is pertinent to examine such dimensions in the curricula.

Finally, we conducted data triangulation (Bryman, 2016) by comparing the compulsory school for pupils with intellectual disabilities document with Lgra22, both the general directions of the Upper Secondary School for Pupils with Intellectual Disabilities (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2024b) and the regular curriculum of compulsory school in Sweden, Lgr22 (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2024c). We worked with official English translations whenever possible, although the actual curriculum in the Upper Secondary School for Pupils with Intellectual Disabilities, GySär13, is found in Swedish. Generally, it is fruitful to work with both Swedish and English documents in the Swedish school system (Boman and Mosesson, 2023). While GySär13 and Gy11 will be replaced with a newer set of curricula, Gy25, these have not yet been released and implemented.

Nevertheless, the purpose was to gain further perspective and comparative viewpoints in relation to the main document, as it partly hinges on explicit or implicit comparisons with other layers and levels of education, including regular compulsory school and further education among individuals with ID. The focus was on democratic features and values rather than grades and syllabi.

Below, most of the main themes are contextualized with respect to various historical, political, social, and sociocultural aspects (e.g., Cohen, 2001: Fairclough, 2003; Munn, 2013; Schiro, 2013).

Lgr22 is the compulsory school counterpart of Lgra22. In many regards, these two documents are reflections of each other in terms of syllabi and content, although Lgr22 is more extensive and covers 283 pages compared 196 in Lgra22. This is mostly because the pre-school is also a part of Lgr22, the curriculum of the regular compulsory school.

A palpable similarity is that the school system is rooted in democracy, which is stressed in the very first sentence of both curricula. Moreover, all school forms accentuate the international perspective of education, as well as an ethical, environmental and historical perspective.

Further, GySär13, the curriculum of Upper Secondary School for Pupils with Intellectual Disabilities, underscores that it is not sufficient that the school teaches and transmits knowledge about basic democratic values. The instruction itself ought to hinge on democratic work processes and develop the student’s ability to take personal responsibility and participate actively in social life. Hence, the upper-secondary level of School for Pupils with Intellectual Disabilities continues the foundation which has been set in compulsory school. Because these are core elements of the curricula, this should be implemented in all types of national or individual programs, which in this context puts emphasis on vocational education (e.g., c.f. Swedish National Agency for Education, 2022, 2024b,2024c).

Overall, there is an alignment of democratic emphasis in all three school forms. The main difference is that social science studies is being taught in all national program within the regular upper-secondary school, according to Gy11, the national curriculum of the upper-secondary school. Therefore, individuals without ID are also taught more about democracy as a system within Sweden and internationally compared to individuals with ID, who obtain their education in the ID school counterpart.