As is widely known, Sweden’s coronavirus response has been an outlier in several ways. One point, in particular, is that many measures are just issued as recommendations to the public, rather than legally imposed and enforced as in many other countries.
I’ve heard it claimed, quite widely, that this is (in part) because the Swedish government doesn’t have the constitutional power to impose lockdown-type restrictions. I find this claim difficult to assess in context. As I understand it, many countries’ lockdowns are beyond what their governments would be constitutionally empowered to impose under normal circumstances — but governments have suspended/overridden this in various ways, e.g. declaring states of emergency (in a process provided by their constitution for suspending normal limits), or passing other kinds of emergency legislation that expand powers while remaining constitutional, or simply ignoring constitutional issues and imposing strict measures anyway. So it’s not clear to me whether the Swedish limits could have been similarly suspended/overridden if the government had chosen to, or whether something in the Swedish constitution or legal system makes their limitations genuinely harder than elsewhere.
In summary, my question is: Is the Swedish government more constitutionally limited in its powers to impose lockdown-type measures than the governments of other comparable countries?
I would be most interested in answers comparing Sweden with closely comparable countries — e.g. other Northern/Western European countries, and especially those that have imposed stricter lockdowns.
(Note: I am trying to stay on-topic and as non-controversial as possible given the topic. I’m not asking anything broader about the Swedish response in general, and I hope commenters will refrain from discussing that; I’m just asking about a constitutional-legal point often mentioned as part of the explanation for the response.)