In the autumn of 2025, Sweden adopted a comprehensive cultural canon which includes ten works of fiction, among them a poetry anthology, following many years of debate. Denmark likewise introduced a cultural canon in 2006, but this has not since been revised and no longer functions as an active force in Danish cultural and literary mediation. By contrast, in 2025 Denmark also introduced a new literary canon for upper secondary education (gymnasiet), replacing the former canon from 2004, and due to come into effect in the 2026/27 school year. This revision followed two decades of criticism of the previous canon, in particular for its gender bias, but also for its lack of representation of large parts of the Danish Realm.
Subsequently, there has once again been debate about the relevance and character of the Danish canon, which—unlike the Swedish one—covers entire authorships. The canon is now divided into an obligatory list of seven authorships and a so‑called gross list of a further 29 authorships, from which twelve must be selected to form the syllabus for a given cohort.
While there are three female authors on the obligatory list—Karen Blixen, Tove Ditlevsen, and Inger Christensen (all from the twentieth century)—there are eleven on the gross list, ranging from Leonora Christina (seventeenth century) to Pia Juul (twentieth–twenty‑first century). In addition, authors from Greenland and the Faroe Islands are now included, as well as authors from the wider Nordic region, including several women writers: Amalie Skram (Norwegian), Selma Lagerlöf (Swedish), and Edith Södergran (Finland‑Swedish).
The Canon Committee’s Rationale for the New Literary Canon
The new canon has been developed by a ministerial committee chaired by Anne‑Marie Mai, Professor of Literature at the University of Southern Denmark. In an interview with Gymnasieskolen (October 2025), she summarises the motivation behind the work:
“Literature gives us insight, expands our horizons, and helps us be human. When we read fiction, we encounter the world through the eyes of others. With the new canon, we want to bring many more diverse voices in Danish literature into teaching.”
She continues:
“It matters that there is literature by both men and women from different social backgrounds and from different historical periods. If female authors are absent from teaching, female readers are strangely absent as well […] Literature gives students a language for their own experiences, but also for what they would otherwise not have access to. Literature can deepen their understanding of other people’s living conditions, both in the present and historically.”
In this context, she also highlights the importance of including voices from Greenland and the Faroe Islands, as well as from the other Nordic countries, and emphasises that the literary canon—both in educational and other contexts—can serve as a starting point for discussions of living conditions, cultural heritage, values, and communities.
It is worth noting in this connection that the Danish Minister for Children and Education, Mattias Tesfaye, despite assurances that he would not interfere in the committee’s work, subsequently had the working‑class author Martin Andersen Nexø reinserted into the gross list. Nexø is known, among other things, for depicting the rise of the labour movement in Denmark. The list also now includes a more recent author with an ethnic minority background, Yahya Hassan.
Anne‑Marie Mai stresses in the interview that the literary canon should not be seen as a definitive answer key to literary quality, but rather as a professionally grounded proposal—one that should be approached as such—where considerations of both literary quality and representation have been taken into account. An important aim is also to open readers’ eyes to good literature and to foster a desire to read:
“A canon is not a Danish championship in literature. It is a working tool for upper secondary education. These are not winners we have selected—one must remember that. Naturally, quality is the most important criterion for selection, but it must also be something we believe can engage students. The new canon is meant to create a joy of reading among young people.”
The Subsequent Debate – Praise and Criticism
The new literary canon has sparked debate in the Danish press, attracting both praise and criticism. One focal point has been the perceived shift in priorities from (solely) quality to (primarily) representation. This critique has been articulated, among other media, in Weekendavisen, where literary scholar Anders Thyrring Andersen argues in an interview with journalist Arne Hardis that the canon lists reflect the spirit of the age or “the prevailing ideological taste” in their emphasis on broad representation, rather than literary quality and historical significance.
Conversely, this very attempt to reflect the present moment and increased diversity has been praised in both Politiken (Chr. J. Idskov) and Information (Peter Nielsen). These commentators also emphasise the flexibility built into the two lists, particularly the freedom of choice afforded by the gross list.
Another perspective has been highlighted in Kristeligt Dagblad, where journalist Morten Mikkelsen—on the basis of interviews with several literary scholars—concludes that the new lists also reflect a prioritisation of international circulation and recognition. This applies, for example, to the inclusion of Tove Ditlevsen, whose work is currently being widely translated and read internationally, something he views positively. Other more critical contributions have focused on, among other issues, the relative absence of poetry as a genre and Romanticism as a literary period.
Right or Duty? – And a Guide to the Seven Authors on the Obligatory List
As was the case in both 2004 and 2006, the subsequent debate has also revolved around whether it is appropriate to have a literary canon at all, with arguments both for and against. Proponents have pointed to the value of shared cultural reference points with both historical depth and contemporary relevance, while critics have highlighted the formative “paternalism” inherent in a formalised canon.
Anne‑Marie Mai addresses this issue in an interview with journalist Jes Stein Petersen in Politiken (October 2025):
“Young people in upper secondary education each have the right to be acquainted with the most important early figures in Danish literature. Within them lies a gold mine of insight, wisdom, and language. Through them, countless exciting and inspiring paths lead into the rest of Danish literature, including the very newest. What is ‘obligatory’ should be understood as an opportunity—a right to encounter the very best when undertaking an upper secondary education.”
Here, obligation and compulsion are redefined as opportunity and right, and in the interview this argument is followed by a short inspirational text on each of the seven authors on the obligatory list.
Articles Discussed in the Daily and Specialist Press
Hardis, Arne: “Tidens kanoner” [“The Canons of the Age”]. Interview (with Anders Thyrring Andersen), Weekendavisen, 31 October 2025, section 1, p. 16.
Idskov, Christian Johannes: “Det var på tide” [“It Was About Time”]. Politiken, 29 September 2025, section 1, p. 1.
Mikkelsen, Morten: “Litteraturkanon bliver mere international” [“The Literary Canon Becomes More International”]. Kristeligt Dagblad, 27 September 2025, section 1, p. 1.
Nielsen, Peter: “Ny litteraturkanon” [“New Literary Canon”]. Information, 26 September 2025, Books, section 3, p. 2.
Petersen, Jes Stein: “Professorens guide til den nye litteraturkanon” [“The Professor’s Guide to the New Literary Canon”]. Politiken, Books, p. 4.
Rasmussen, Tina: “En kanon er ikke et danmarksmesterskab i litteratur” [“A Canon Is Not a Danish Championship in Literature”]. Interview with Anne‑Marie Mai (15 September), Gymnasieskolen, October 2025.