Diverse experiences of Ukrainian refugees across the Nordic countries

Following the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, over 6.9 million Ukrainians fled their homeland. The Nordic countries—Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark—have adopted notably different approaches to hosting these refugees.

From generous to restrictive: a mixed Nordic welcome

Norway and Finland emerged as the most generous in both absolute and relative numbers, hosting refugees amounting to roughly 1.5% of their populations. In contrast, Sweden, despite its size, admitted proportionally fewer Ukrainians (0.7%).

Policy differences are pronounced. Sweden maintained one of Europe’s most restrictive asylum systems, offering minimal benefits and limited access to healthcare and integration services until reforms in late 2024. Conversely, Denmark, despite its traditionally strict immigration policies, offered Ukrainian refugees financial and integration rights comparable to other refugee groups. Norway initially welcomed Ukrainians with generous policies but reversed course in 2023, introducing restrictions in response to a sharp uptick in arrivals.

Safety, support, and struggles

The brief, based on a survey of 3,379 Ukrainian refugees and over 50 in-depth interviews, reveals that safety and support for children were the top factors influencing refugees’ choice of country. Norway was most often cited for its protection of refugee rights and integration support. In Sweden, family and friend networks were more influential, though 17% of refugees there now regret their decision to relocate—a far higher share than in other Nordic countries.

“I feel safe in Norway as a woman, and I trust this country a lot,” one respondent noted.

A tale of two systems

Ukrainian refugees gave generally high marks to their reception, especially in Norway, Finland, and Denmark. Sweden consistently scored lower, particularly for its public reception system and access to healthcare, job assistance, and education recognition. The lack of personal identification numbers in Sweden, which limits access to services, was a recurring frustration.

Notably, informal labour is significantly more common among Ukrainian refugees in Sweden, where low financial support forces many into the grey economy. Nearly a quarter of respondents there reported being offered off-the-books work, double the rate in other Nordic countries.

Return or remain?

Despite Ukraine’s need for its displaced citizens to return for post-war rebuilding, the brief paints a sobering picture: only 9% of refugees expressed a desire to return as soon as the war ends. Security concerns, political instability, destroyed homes, and children’s futures in a post-war Ukraine weigh heavily in their decision-making.

“I cannot plan to return to Ukraine, I have nothing there,” said one refugee. Another voiced a broader concern: “We don’t plan to return. Because I don’t see a happy childhood for my child in a post-war country.”

The brief concludes with a clear warning: as the war drags on, the likelihood of return diminishes. Integration policies in host countries and Ukraine’s own reintegration efforts will determine the long-term trajectory for millions of displaced Ukrainians.

Source:
Reception, integration and future prospects of Ukrainian refugees in the Nordic countries
Aadne Aasland & Vilde Hernes, NIBR Policy Brief 2025:1, Oslo Metropolitan University.

The publication: Ukraina policy brief mars 2025 KAZ.indd