I think that's missing the point. Sweden has been an overbearing consensus culture with relatively limited room for debate or differences in opinions or values beyond the superficial.
Minorities like the Roma have been permitted to exist, but they've had zero place in the public sphere.
Yes, historically Sweden has been overbearing consensus culture, including using so-called "race science" to justify their positions, as with the Tornedalians.
But didn't official policy change long before they accepted many poor refugees from the non-West, which is the criteria shrimp_emoji used at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37336674 ?
That change, as I understand it, included creating the autonomous Sámi parliament back in the 1990s, and recognizing the Tornedalians and Sweden Finns, yes?
Plus, by the time of the Middle Eastern refugees, Sweden had accepted Western refugees, like Chileans back in the 1970s and Balkan refugees of the 1990s?
How then is Sweden a still meaningfully a monoculture even by, say, 2005?
I mean, I can understand how a government can be a monoculture, even if the country is not (eg, Afrikaans and South Africa), but I took shrimp_emoji to refer to the overall population, not the government.
Minorities like the Roma have been permitted to exist, but they've had zero place in the public sphere.