Despite the early establishment of Easy Language in Sweden in the 1960s and a growing interest in producing Easy Language materials, linguistic research on Easy Swedish remains scarce. This literature review aims to describe how Easy Swedish has been understood in previous research, bringing together a wide range of perspectives and approaches. Applying a meta-narrative method, we investigate terms and definitions, descriptions of the target group, and ideologies, discourses, and values that justify Easy Language. Our results show an exclusive focus on written language and use of the term lättläst (Easy to Read), and a lack of a universal definition of the term. The results also show general agreement on the heterogeneity of the target group. Controversy arises from different perspectives on reading as well as the breadth of the concept, and the conceptualisation of Easy Swedish varies depending on the aims, discipline, and studied material.

This article aims to introduce new insights to further the understanding of easy language (EL) and plain language (PL) as examples of tailored language and place them within a broader context of linguistic varieties. We examine EL and PL in relation to standard language, and we consider the degree of conscious effort required in tailoring and the compliance with the codified norms of standard language. Both EL and PL are used in asymmetric communication: PL to mediate between specialists and the general public and EL in communication with people with language barriers. We argue that while these varieties have similar purposes and methods, they also have significant differences; for example, the tailoring moves in opposite directions, as PL seeks general comprehensibility and EL aims to reach special and vulnerable groups. The differences between PL and EL are primarily linked to social prestige and the potential risk of stigma related to their use.

The paper discusses whether easy-to-read (ETR) German can be classified as a ‘variety’ and/or a ‘register’. It appears to be very difficult to capture the variational status of ETR German within the system of language variation due to its rather artificial, rule-based character. On the other hand, the question of whether the notion of variety or register, or any other notion modelling language variation, is suitable for the linguistic classification of ETR German very much depends on how these notions are defined. Thus the article reveals general difficulties in capturing the functioning of language variation with clear-cut definitions and concepts due to the dynamics and complexity of language variation as such. Nevertheless, the explanatory frameworks of concepts such as variety and register prove to be useful for describing the special variational status of ETR German.

Language for all is a method developed in the Netherlands for providing information in such a way that as many intended readers as possible both comprehend and accept this information. Readers include people with a large variety of reading abilities including people with low literacy skills. Language for all can be characterized as a more accessible variant of plain language with some characteristics of easy language.

In three studies the comprehension and acceptance of and preference for texts written in Language for all was evaluated, comparing original texts with a version in Language for all.

Information written in Language for all was significantly better understood and accepted, and was preferable to the original version.

In conclusion, Language for all is a promising effective, inclusive, and comprehensive method to provide information to people with and without low literacy skills. Further research is recommended.