This bachelor's thesis is a comparative legal study of the Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsman(JO) and the French Defender of Rights (Défenseur des droits, DDD). The purpose is toanalyse how their different constitutional and organizational frameworks affect their roles as guarantors of the rule of law. Using legal dogmatic and comparative methods, the study examines the independence, mandate, and effectiveness of these institutions. The results show that while JO functions as a legal guide with supervision also over courts, DDD acts as a broad protector of rights with a focus on accessibility. The conclusion highlights that these institutional differences reflect distinct constitutional traditions and conceptions of oversight.While the Swedish model prioritizes legal certainty, consistency, and normative authority through a narrowly defined but deep supervisory mandate, the French model emphasizes accessibility, flexibility, and individual rights to protection through a broader and more integrated institutional design. As a result, JO:s effectiveness lies primarily in its long term normative impact on public administration, whereas DDD:s strength is found in its capacity to provide immediate accessibility and broader mandates may come at the cost of reduced enforceability, illustrating an inherent trade-off between normative authority and practical responsiveness in ombudsman institutions.