This public law study aims to analyze abstract norm review in Sweden and Azerbaijan, conducted byspecific entities – the Swedish Council on Legislation (Lagrådet) and the Constitutional Court ofAzerbaijan, respectively. The primary focus is to examine and compare the approaches of Lagrådet andthe Azerbaijani Constitutional Court in abstract norm control.In this essay, a comparison is made between abstract norm review in Sweden and Azerbaijan, revealingsimilarities in purpose but significant differences in the powers and the binding nature of decisions.Historically, Sweden has undergone a longer constitutional development, while Azerbaijan hasundergone changes following its independence from the Soviet Union, which is noticeable throughvarious historical and political contexts shaping their norm review processes.In practice, Lagrådet in Sweden plays an advisory role during the legislative process. Although itsadvice carries significant weight, the final decision to follow or deviate from these recommendationslies with the government. Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court in Azerbaijan possesses direct legallybinding authority over its decisions, which affect all organs and individuals in the country.The difference in independence and legitimacy between these institutions is reflected in their impact onlegislation. Despite its active role, Lagrådet is subordinate to the government's decisions. Meanwhile,the Constitutional Court in Azerbaijan has a more independent and tangible influence on legislation.