This dissertation examines whether the 2004 abolition of inheritance and gift taxation in Sweden can be normatively justified when assessed against contemporary theories of justice. While there form was politically uncontroversial and justified on administrative and economic grounds—suchas efficiency, legal uncertainty, and support for family businesses—its broader ethical implications were left unexplored in the political discourse. Using Ingrid Robeyns’ theory of limitarianism and her comprehensive normative audit as the main theoretical framework, the study applies a two phase method: (1) a descriptive idea analysis of Swedish policy documents and parliamentary debates, and (2) a normative evaluation of these arguments through the lens of democratic justice.

The empirical findings show that Sweden’s decision-makers framed inheritance taxation as obsolete and procedurally flawed, without considering values such as equality of opportunity, political equality, or intergenerational fairness. The normative audit confirms that the reform fails to meet core standards of justice, particularly in terms of fairness, autonomy, and legitimacy. The dissertation concludes that Robeyns’ Accessions Cap Proposal offers a feasible and ethically superior alternative, capable of regulating wealth transfers in line with democratic values. It calls for a re-politicization of inheritance policy as a matter not just of economics, but of justice.