Abstract This article presents the first comparative empirical study of constitutional reasoning in the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden). Drawing on forty leading constitutional cases from each of the seven examined courts, the authors apply the CONREASON method to map how arguments and key constitutional concepts are used in judicial decision-making. The study situates Nordic courts within a global comparative framework, highlighting both shared regional features and notable divergences. It shows that, despite differences in constitutional texts and institutional arrangements, the Nordic courts exhibit a distinctive combination of deference to parliamentary intent and cautious judicial review. Preparatory works occupy an unusually prominent role in constitutional interpretation, particularly in Finland and Sweden, whereas Norway and Iceland rely more heavily on precedents. At the same time, all Nordic courts display high levels of engagement with international human rights law—especially the European Convention on Human Rights—while showing limited openness to foreign influence and intra-Nordic dialogue in this field. The article also examines the use of core constitutional concepts such as the rule of law and separation of powers, revealing how their application reflects deeper legal-cultural mentalities and historical contexts. By combining quantitative and qualitative analysis, the study provides new insights into the evolving Nordic constitutional culture and its position on the global spectrum of constitutional reasoning. It concludes by discussing the potential future challenges posed by Europeanization, internationalization, and political change for the traditionally restrained role of Nordic courts.
Kelemen et al. (2026) studied this question.