Universal welfare states like the Swedish is based on the idea that all citizens should have equal access to basic social services like health care, primary education and social care for the young and old. The introduction of new management models such as choice, competition and quasi-markets in the provision of these services changes the conditions for their allocation as well as for the democratic governance of the system as a whole. Even though there is still universal access to these social services in Sweden, given that they are still publicly financed, there is more variety in what types of services are available to citizens and how they interact with providers in utilizing them. For instance, the choices of individuals will affect patterns of allocation with respect to what kind of schools children attend or whether a private or public care provider is chosen. In this sense, the introduction of competition and choice will make universal welfare states less uniform and create more diversity in how social citizenship rights are exercised. The question is what this means for the universal character of these services and the long-standing political goal in Sweden to equalize life chances between different groups of citizens. Is there a risk that consumer choice in welfare system leads to more stratified patterns of social service consumption? Are there any systematic differences in how citizens choose? In this paper I review the empirical knowledge so far of user choice patterns in education, health- and social care in Sweden order to examine if there are any differences in consumption patterns that can be related to group differences like education, income or ethnicity. I thereafter discuss the results in light of current debates about quasi-markets, user choice and social equality. The theoretical discussion in the paper will also draw on different democratic ideals, contrasting liberal democratic models with more contractual ones.
