In comparative education, scholars have long tried to understand why and when policy actors make international references. They have found that policy actors often externalize when they need to form alliances or seek for greater legitimacy and that the actual practice is shaped by national political contexts and the institutionalized policy process in each country (Steiner‐Khamsi, 2004). In particular, each country has its own “reference societies” where they borrow policies and practices from or refer to positively and negatively in the policy process (Bendix, 1978).

In the Nordic region, it has been perceived that each Nordic country serves as reference society of each other within the region. This perception may have been based on the rich communication and cooperation among the Nordic countries in education. Despite the common perception, little has been empirically examined regarding to what extent policy actors actually make reference to other Nordic countries and why (not). This study looks into the references in the policy documents prepared for the most recent education reforms in two Nordic countries: Norway and Sweden. They are particularly interesting cases to compare because of the similarities with regard to their institutionalized policymaking process as well as geographical and cultural proximity.

We examined the bibliographic references in the white papers and green papers (NOUs and SOUs) prepared for the 2016/2020 renewal of the Knowledge Promotion Reform in Norway and the 2015/2018 Knowledge Achievement Reform in Sweden. In total, our sample includes 19 policy documents and 4,260 references. Additionally, we interviewed ten policy experts who participated in the preparation of the policy documents analyzed in this study.

The results show that while Norway drew extensively on knowledge from its neighbors, especially from Sweden, Sweden seldom referenced knowledge produced in other Nordic countries. Policy actors in Norway described that using knowledge produced in other Nordic countries is “quite natural” in the policy process while policy actors in Sweden shared that there has been little formal exchange with these countries in the policy process. Building on the concept of “silent borrowing” coined by Waldow (2009), we interpret the difference in the way Norway and Sweden use knowledge produced in their Nordic neighbors within the broader framework on which bodies of knowledge have greater accessibility or legitimacy (Nordin & Wahlström, 2022). Furthermore, we find that the difference was influenced by reform contexts (e.g., timing of the competency-based curriculum adoption) as well as the membership composition of expert commissions (e.g., larger commission vs. one-person commission).