The important feature of the Swedish system is its long continuity. Although there have been significant moments of constitutional and legal change, there is a great deal of institutional continuity and evolution, rather than revolution. Such a climate naturally leads to a pragmatic and piecemeal approach, rather than a major re-ordering, as in France in 1789 and 1958, or Germany in 1949. The interesting feature is the capacity for change that the Swedish system exhibits. In many ways, it is more modern than either the French or German systems. To a great extent, although outwardly the structures of courts and judicial careers have remained very similar, their character has slowly changed very significantly.

The lack of revolution has perhaps strengthened the process of developing indigenous models of the judicial and legal process. There has not been a marked crisis of confidence in the way in which the domestic system operates since 1809, and even then that crisis was predominantly constitutional, rather than affecting the legal system as a whole. A country with a small population, Sweden has traditionally looked outwards for ideas and has assimilated them as it considered appropriate. Though engaged with the outside world, there has been an autonomous pace of development, enabling Sweden to ‘cherry-pick’ ideas from outside. External influences within Scandinavia have been important, and constitute a constant point of reference, but Sweden has been prepared to develop in its own ways.