Issue Bias in Generative AI Writing Assistance: Political Issues and LLMs in the Swedish 2026 Election

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.15207v1
• Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2026 08:28:14 GMT
• Title: Issue Bias in Generative AI Writing Assistance: Political Issues and LLMs in the Swedish 2026 Election
• Abstract summary: We examine the stances supplied by six Large Language Models (LLMs) on a variety of Swedish-language writing tasks ahead of the 2026 Swedish parliamentary election.<n>We look at the models' default stance tendencies, compare how they respond to similar issues, and compare their responses with those of each of Sweden's eight parliamentary parties on the same issue.<n>We find that no model has a clear preference, nor a clear preference for a party, but that this depends on the specific issue or task the user asks about.
• Score: 13.459327349684566
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Generative AI writing assistants and the Large Language Models (LLMs) that power them are increasingly part of how voters gather information before elections. With growing evidence that they influence users' opinions, it is increasingly important to understand the views and positions of these tools. To better understand these views, we examine the stances supplied by six LLMs on a variety of Swedish-language writing tasks ahead of the 2026 Swedish parliamentary election. We cross 107 policy propositions with 77 writing templates and neutral, positive, and negative prompt framings, producing 24,717 prompts per model and 148,302 responses. To study these, we look at the models' default stance tendencies, compare how they respond to similar issues, and compare their responses with those of each of Sweden's eight parliamentary parties on the same issue. We find that Claude, DeepSeek, Gemini, and Mistral have similar profiles; ChatGPT more often supplies neutral or ambivalent text; and Grok differs most on topics such as migration, crime, and gender. When comparing the political parties, we find that the Social Democrats are closest to all six models. Still, after correcting for multiple comparisons, none of the within-model differences in party distances remains significant. Overall, we find that no model has a clear preference, nor a clear preference for a party, but that this depends on the specific issue or task the user asks about.

Related papers

• The Invisible Coalition Partner: How LLMs Vote When Democracy Gets Concrete [0.0]
  Abstract questionnaires do not predict concrete behavior.<n>For some models, the language of a political question changes the answer more than the political content does.<n>Two models exhibit systematic change-aversion rather than political bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-03T08:48:33Z)
• Political Bias Audits of LLMs Capture Sycophancy to the Inferred Auditor [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) are commonly evaluated for political bias based on their responses to fixed questionnaires.<n>We show that standard political-bias audits partly capture sycophantic accommodation to the inferred auditor.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-30T09:23:00Z)
• Democratic or Authoritarian? Probing a New Dimension of Political Biases in Large Language Models [72.89977583150748]
  We propose a novel methodology to assess how Large Language Models align with broader geopolitical value systems.<n>We find that LLMs generally favor democratic values and leaders, but exhibit increases favorability toward authoritarian figures when prompted in Mandarin.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-15T07:52:07Z)
• Affective Polarization Amongst Swedish Politicians [0.0]
  This study investigates affective polarization among Swedish politicians on Twitter from 2021 to 2023.<n>Negative partisanship becomes significantly more dominant when the in-group is defined at the party level.<n>Negative partisanship also proves to be a strategic choice for online visibility, attracting 3.18 more likes and 1.69 more retweets on average.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-20T14:40:48Z)
• Large Language Models Reflect the Ideology of their Creators [71.65505524599888]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained on vast amounts of data to generate natural language.<n>This paper shows that the ideological stance of an LLM appears to reflect the worldview of its creators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T04:02:30Z)
• Who Would Chatbots Vote For? Political Preferences of ChatGPT and Gemini in the 2024 European Union Elections [0.0]
  The research focused on the evaluation of political parties represented in the European Parliament across 27 EU Member States by these generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems. The results revealed a stark contrast: while Gemini mostly refused to answer political questions, ChatGPT provided consistent ratings. The study identified key factors influencing the ratings, including attitudes toward European integration and perceptions of democratic values.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-01T13:40:13Z)
• Representation Bias in Political Sample Simulations with Large Language Models [54.48283690603358]
  This study seeks to identify and quantify biases in simulating political samples with Large Language Models. Using the GPT-3.5-Turbo model, we leverage data from the American National Election Studies, German Longitudinal Election Study, Zuobiao dataset, and China Family Panel Studies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-16T05:52:26Z)
• Whose Side Are You On? Investigating the Political Stance of Large Language Models [56.883423489203786]
  We investigate the political orientation of Large Language Models (LLMs) across a spectrum of eight polarizing topics. Our investigation delves into the political alignment of LLMs across a spectrum of eight polarizing topics, spanning from abortion to LGBTQ issues. The findings suggest that users should be mindful when crafting queries, and exercise caution in selecting neutral prompt language.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-15T04:02:24Z)
• Beyond prompt brittleness: Evaluating the reliability and consistency of political worldviews in LLMs [13.036825846417006]
  We propose a series of tests to assess the reliability and consistency of large language models' stances on political statements. We study models ranging in size from 7B to 70B parameters and find that their reliability increases with parameter count. Larger models show overall stronger alignment with left-leaning parties but differ among policy programs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-27T16:19:37Z)
• Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect? [88.35520051971538]
  We investigate the opinions reflected by language models (LMs) by leveraging high-quality public opinion polls and their associated human responses. We find substantial misalignment between the views reflected by current LMs and those of US demographic groups. Our analysis confirms prior observations about the left-leaning tendencies of some human feedback-tuned LMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-30T17:17:08Z)
• Quantifying Gender Bias Towards Politicians in Cross-Lingual Language Models [104.41668491794974]
  We quantify the usage of adjectives and verbs generated by language models surrounding the names of politicians as a function of their gender. We find that while some words such as dead, and designated are associated with both male and female politicians, a few specific words such as beautiful and divorced are predominantly associated with female politicians.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-15T15:03:26Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.