Democracy has long been a central ambition of Nordic schooling, yet the meaning of democracy and the forms of democratic practice expected in classrooms vary significantly across national curricula. This paper examines how democracy is discursively constructed in the curricula of Finland, Norway, Denmark and Sweden, and how these constructions shape expectations for democratic values, practices and subjectivities. The study draws on Dewey’s pragmatism, Englund’s deliberative democratic theory, Biesta’s concept of subjectification and Mouffe’s agonistic pluralism to develop a multi‑perspectival analytical framework capable of capturing the plurality of democratic logics embedded in curriculum texts. Dewey’s understanding of democracy as a communicative mode of associated living highlights how participation and shared experience are foregrounded; Englund’s deliberative model illuminates the emphasis on dialogue, equality and reason‑giving; Biesta’s focus on subjectification draws attention to the ethical and relational dimensions of democratic becoming; and Mouffe’s agonistic theory foregrounds conflict, plurality and the hegemonic struggles that shape democratic orders.

Methodologically, the analysis is informed by Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory, operationalised through nodal points, chains of signification, antagonisms, subject positions and discursive logics. The study is designed as a documentary analysis of current preschool and basic education curricula in the four Nordic countries. Democracy was treated as a nodal point, and an initial search for the terms democra and critic (in Swedish, Norwegian and Danish variants) was conducted to identify articulations of democracy and democratic values. These occurrences, together with their contextual and procedural settings, formed the empirical basis for analysis.

Following Narwaya’s (2021) four‑stage analytical procedure, the first stage involved tracing articulations of democracy across the curricula. The second stage focused on identifying subject positions, understood as discursive locations from which democracy is articulated. Across the material, four recurring positions emerged: an abstract authority position defining democracy at a general level; a processual position embodied by the teacher; a child/pupil position; and a participative action position connecting different actors through shared engagement. The third stage centred on identifying antagonisms within each articulation of democracy by tracing the logics of equivalence and difference. This made it possible to examine how hegemonic meanings of democracy are constructed and how they diverge across national contexts. The fourth stage focused on the dynamics of interaction between discourses and the floating signifiers that create spaces of opportunity, acknowledging that no democratic identity can ever be fully constituted.

The findings reveal four distinct democratic imaginaries. In Finland, democracy is articulated through pluralism, rights and sustainability, constructing a democratic subject who is reflective, responsible and capable of acting within an agonistic pluralist order. Norway frames democracy through shared values, tradition and citizenship, producing a value‑anchored, dialogical and morally grounded democratic subject. Denmark emphasises inquiry, standpoint‑taking and action competence, positioning democracy as an active, investigative practice in which students are expected to take responsibility through engagement and decision‑making. Sweden constructs democracy through relational ethics, participation and influence, producing a communicative and relational democratic subject whose agency emerges through ethical encounters with others.

Across the four curricula, antagonisms reveal the boundaries of each democratic project: non‑participation and unsustainability in Finland, intolerance and discrimination in Norway, passivity in Denmark, and exclusion and insecurity in Sweden. These antagonisms stabilise the hegemonic logics that underpin each national discourse. The paper contributes to Nordic curriculum research by demonstrating how different democratic logics, pluralist, value‑community, action‑competence and relational-ethical-shape expectations for democratic practice in schools and structure the democratic subjectivities that education is expected to cultivate.

his documentary study analyses the current curricula for preschool and basic education in the four Nordic countries (Børne- og Undervisningsministeriet, 2018; 2024; Skolverket, 2025; 2022/2025; Utbildningsstyrelsen/Opetushallitus, 2014/2022; 2014/2025; Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2017; 2017b). We selected curricula in the languages we are proficient in—Swedish, Norwegian and Danish—which also meant using the Swedish version of the Finnish curricula, as Swedish is one of Finland’s official languages. The analysis draws on Laclau and Mouffe’s (2001) discourse theory and its analytical elaborations by Holmer‑Nadesan (1996) and Narwaya (2021). Following Narwaya’s (2021) four‑stage analytical procedure, the first stage involved tracing articulations of democracy across the curricula. Democracy was treated as a nodal point, and we conducted an initial search for the terms democra and critic (in Swedish, Norwegian and Danish variants). These occurrences, together with their contextual and procedural settings, were compiled as the empirical basis for analysis. The second stage focused on identifying subject positions, understood as the discursive locations from which democracy is articulated. While subject positions are always plural and never fully fixed, our material revealed three recurring positions: an abstract authority position defining democracy at a general level; a processual position embodied by the teacher; and a child/pupil position. We also identified a fourth position that connects actors through shared engagement, which we term a participative action position. In the third stage, we analysed antagonisms within each articulation of democracy by tracing the logics of equivalence and difference (Narwaya, 2021). This involved examining how hegemonic meanings of democracy are constructed and how they diverge across national contexts. Practically, we mapped how democracy, democratic values and democratic processes are articulated in each curriculum and compared how these articulations differ between preschool and basic education across the Nordic countries. The fourth stage centred on the dynamics of interaction between discourses and the signifiers that create spaces of opportunity (Narwaya, 2021). This critical dimension aligns with an anti‑essentialist, anti‑foundationalist understanding of discourse, where all social practices struggle for hegemonic position. Differentiation may therefore occur both within and between the four countries’ articulations of democracy. Our aim was to identify the characteristics of floating signifiers, acknowledging—as Laclau and Mouffe (2001) emphasise—that no identity or discourse can ever be fully constituted. Discourse theory thus provides a framework for understanding how democracy is structured, contested and governed in the curricula, while recognising democracy as an agonistic field in which competing interests confront one another within Nordic educational spaces.

Across the four countries, democracy is fixed through different nodal points and chains of signification: pluralism and sustainability in Finland, shared values and tradition in Norway, inquiry and action competence in Denmark, and relational ethics and influence in Sweden. These articulations produce different democratic subject positions and different expectations for how democracy should be enacted in educational practice. The antagonisms identified in each curriculum: non‑participation, intolerance, passivity and exclusion; reveal the boundaries of these democratic projects and the hegemonic logics that stabilise them. The theoretical framework proved productive for illuminating these differences. Dewey helped clarify how participation, communication and shared experience underpin several Nordic articulations of democracy. Englund’s deliberative model highlighted the prominence of dialogue, equality and reason‑giving, particularly in the Swedish and Norwegian curricula. Biesta’s focus on subjectification illuminated the ethical and relational dimensions of democratic becoming, while Mouffe’s agonistic perspective made visible the political and conflictual nature of democratic discourse, especially in the Finnish and Danish cases. Together, these perspectives enabled a nuanced reading of how democracy is constructed, justified and prioritised in curriculum texts. The findings underscore that Nordic democracy is not a singular pedagogical ideal but a contested and evolving field. Recognising these differences is crucial for understanding how democratic education is imagined and enacted in practice, and for acknowledging that democratic subjectivity is shaped through competing discursive logics rather than through universal or neutral principles. By foregrounding the plurality and contingency of democratic discourse, this study contributes to ongoing debates about the democratic purpose of schooling and highlights the need for continued critical engagement with how democracy is articulated in educational policy.

*Børne- og Undervisningsministeriet. (2018, 06 28). Bendtgørelse om pædagogiske mål og indhold i seks læreplanstemaer BEK nr 966 28/06/2018. https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2018/968 *Børne- og undervisningsministeriet. (2024, 12 30). Bekendtgørelse om formål, kompetencemål og opmærksomhedsunkter for folkeskolens fag og emner (Fælles Mål) BEK nr 1715 af 30/12/2024. https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2024/1715 Biesta, G. (2013). Responsible Citizens: Citizenship Education between Social Inclusion and Democratic Politics. In M. Priestley, & G. Biesta, Reinventing the Curriculum: New Trends in Curriculum Policy and Practice (pp. 100-115). Bloomsbury Academic. Biesta, G. (2014). Beautiful Risk of Education. Taylor & Francis Group. Conolly, J., Abraham, G. Y., Bergersen, A., Bratland, K., Jæger, K., & Aarup Jensen, A. (2025). Beyond exceptionalism: Decolonising the Nordic educational mindset. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education, 9(1), 1-20. Cooper, A. (2019). Skolan som demokratiprojekt: en poststrukturell diskursanalys av demokratiuppdrag och lärarsubjekt. [Doctoral thesis, Karlstad university]: DIVA:https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1340301/FULLTEXT01.pdf. Dewey, J. (1937, 10). Education and Social Change. Bulletin of the American association of university professors (1915-1955), 23(6), 472-474. Dewey, J. (2001/1916). Democracy and Education. https://nsee.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/KnowledgeCenter/BuildingExpEduc/BooksReports/10.%20democracy%20and%20education%20by%20dewey.pdf: Pennsylvania State University Electronc Classics Series. Englund, T. (2000). Deliberativa samtal som värdegrund: historiska perspektiv och aktuella förutsättningar. Skolverket. Englund, T. (2000a). Rethinking democracy and education: towards an education of deliberative citizens. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(2), 305-313. Holmer-Nadesan, M. (1996). Organizational Identity and Space of action. Organization Studies, 17(1), 49-81. Krejsler, J. B. (2023b). Danish school policy: Remaining Nordic while going transnational. In J. B. Krejsler, & L. Moos, School Policy Reform in Europe: Educational governance research (pp. 27-46). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35434-2_2 Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (2001). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. Verso Books. Laine, J. (2020). Nordic cooperation. I B. Wassenberg, & B. Reitel, Critical Dictionary on Cross Boarder Cooperation in Europe (ss. 615-625). Others. Mouffe, C. (2000/2009). The Democratic Paradox. Verso. Mouffe, C. (2005). On the Political. Verso. Mouffe, C. (2013). Agonistics: thinking the World Politically. Verso. Narwaya, S. (2021). Discourse Analysis in the Perspective of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe. Journal of Communication Spectrum, 11(1), 1-11. *Skolverket. (2022/2025, 10 10). Läroplan för grundskolan samt för förskoleklassen och fritidshemmet. https://www.skolverket.se/undervisning/grundskolan/laroplan-lgr22-for-grundskolan-samt-for-forskoleklassen-och-fritidshemmet *Skolverket. (2025). Läroplan för förskolan Lpfö18 reviderad 2025. https://www.skolverket.se/getFile?file=13295 *Utbildningsstyrelsen/Opetshallitus. (2014/2022, 12/12 22/2). Grunderna för förskolans undervisningens läroplan 2014: föreskrifter och anvisningar 2016:1. https://www.oph.fi/sv/utbildning-och-examina/grunderna-forskoleundervisningens-laroplan *Utbildningsstyrelsen/Opetshallitus. (2014/2025, 12/07 31/31). Grunderna för läroplanen för den grundläggande utbildningen 2014. https://eperusteet.opintopolku.fi/eperusteet-service/api/dokumentit/9759298 *Utdanningsdirektoratet. (2017, 09 1). Overordnet del: verdier og prinsipper for grunnopplæringen. https://www.udir.no/lk20/overordnet-del/ *Utdanningsdirektoratet. (2017b, 04 24). Rammeplan for barnehagen. https://www.udir.no/contentassets/7c4387bb50314f33b828789ed767329e/rammeplan-for-barnehagen---bokmal-pdf.pdf