This paper examines why important policy changes takes place in questions that are seen as non-important to politicians. The case that is being examined in this paper is why the law on homeschooling was tightened in Sweden in 2010. The policy was included in Sweden’s new school law which was passed by the parliament in 2010. The main question of the paper is:

Why was the regulation on homeschooling tightened in Sweden 2010?

The question is being examined by John Kingdons theory on agenda-setting. The results shows that three streams; problem, policy and politics was coupled together at a given time by the policy entrepreneur who shown to be one of the governments parties folkpartiet who’s party leader also is school minister. The contributing factors to the streams being able to couple together were a focusing event which also became a symbol for the problem. The case is called the Stockholms/maranata case and involved families who had been approved for homeschooling but in secret educated their children together under school like conditions. The fact that the politicians estimated that the national opinion saw the question as a nonquestion due to the few families who were homeschooling at the time gave the politicians room for manoeuvre. The election 2006 which caused a switch in party and civil servants at the department of education also contributed to the political stream. The policy windows that made it possible for the policy entrepreneur folkpartiet to set the agenda were the high priority to renew the school law and the Stockholms/maranata case that became a symbol for the issues with homeschooling.