Libya vs Sweden: Women's universal right to vote

Libya
1
in 2025
Sweden
1
in 2025
Libya rank
1st
Sweden rank
1st

Women's universal right to vote over time

  • Libya
  • Sweden
00.20.40.60.81178919072025

How they compare

Libya currently reports 1 against 1 in Sweden, a difference of 0.

Across all 231 years both countries report, Sweden has been ahead every year.

Libya ranks 1st and Sweden ranks 1st of 197 countries.

Sweden has averaged higher in every one of the 24 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Libya Sweden Difference Ahead
1790s 0 0 0 β€”
1800s 0 0 0 β€”
1810s 0 0 0 β€”
1820s 0 0 0 β€”
1830s 0 0 0 β€”
1840s 0 0 0 β€”
1850s 0 0 0 β€”
1860s 0 0 0 β€”
1870s 0 0 0 β€”
1880s 0 0 0 β€”
1890s 0 0 0 β€”
1900s 0 0 0 β€”
1910s 0 0.1 0.1 Sweden
1920s 0 1 1 Sweden
1930s 0 1 1 Sweden
1940s 0 1 1 Sweden
1950s 0 1 1 Sweden
1960s 0.6 1 0.4 Sweden
1970s 1 1 0 β€”
1980s 1 1 0 β€”
1990s 1 1 0 β€”
2000s 1 1 0 β€”
2010s 1 1 0 β€”
2020s 1 1 0 β€”

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher women's universal right to vote, Libya or Sweden?
Libya, at 1 against 1 in Sweden as of 2025.
What is the difference in women's universal right to vote between Libya and Sweden?
0, with Libya ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Libya and Sweden?
231 years are reported by both, from 1795 to 2025.
How do Libya and Sweden rank globally for women's universal right to vote?
Libya ranks 1st and Sweden ranks 1st of 197 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Lexical Index (2026) – processed by Our World in Data, published as Women's universal right to vote. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

About this data

Indicator
Women's universal right to vote
Source
Lexical Index (2026) – processed by Our World in Data
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (Our World in Data)
Coverage
198 places, 32,485 data points, 1789–2025
Last refreshed

Indicates whether all women are allowed to vote in national elections. It neither considers informal restrictions nor legal restrictions based on age, criminal conviction, disability, and local residency.