In the past few centuries, an accelerating process of legalization and classification have moulded the diverse range of earlier institutions into a limited number of isomorphic organizational forms. Today, institutions of higher education, with their roots in the corporate forms of medieval universities, can also have the legal status of, for example, government agencies, associations under public law, foundations, and joint stock companies. This article investigates the types of legal entities Swedish and Finnish institutions of higher education have been organized into in the period from the 1990s until 2020, and why these particular types have been chosen. It also explores how the special characteristics, aims, and demands of the university have caused adaptations to organizational forms such as joint stock companies and foundations. Comparative studies benefit from investigating societies that are as similar to each other as possible, making it easier to identify and isolate the effects of the factors that actually differ. In this respect, Finland and Sweden are ideal for comparative studies. Both Swedish and Finnish institutions of higher education have experienced coercive, mimetic, normative, and managerial-professional isomorphic pressure. However, there are important pre-existing national differences, such as the greater reliance on public agencies in Sweden and the multiplicity of semi-private legal entities in Finland, most significantly the associations under public law. These differences made the transition of universities into independent legal entities seem natural in Finland in 2009, while it was too radical in the Swedish context. 

Due to their common history, Finland and Sweden share many similarities. However, important differences have also developed in constitutional law, political culture and governance models. These differences have affected the implementation of international trends in the governance of higher education in the two countries. Both the Finnish and Swedish governments have strived to give institutions of higher education more formal autonomy through legislative and constitutional measures while increasing the external representations in their governing boards. However, in Finland, strong constitutional safeguards for university autonomy have counteracted the growth of external influence. The differences between the countries in this regard have their roots in political culture. There is a stronger emphasis on the division of power in Finland, as in other states that have experienced periods of political turmoil, while in Sweden, long dominated by strong social democracy, checks and balances have been considered undemocratic obstacles to the will of the people.