This article provides a critical analysis of the introduction of hospital choice in Denmark and Norway. The two Nordic cases provide evidence from public integrated health systems that may be compared to the current implementation of choice in other countries such as England. We use the theoretical concepts of institutional structure, historical legacies, and situational factors to analyze the translation of the general choice idea into a specific health policy design in Denmark and Norway. The results of the study show that even if there are many similarities between the two countries, there are also significant differences. In Denmark the initial implementation of choice was adjusted to the dominant policy objectives of macroeconomic control through regional planning, while in Norway the chosen solution reflects a more limited concern for expenditure control and a greater willingness to experiment. Timing and differences in the relative strength of the decentralized actors are important explanatory factors. Theoretically, this article provides some insights into the problem of introducing policies that contradict existing traditions, norms, and values. It addresses issues of policy design and the relationship between ideas, historically developed institutions, and situational factors, including actor constellations and interests.