asylum seekers and refugees may not be able to contact the country from which they fled to prove their statelessness to the SMA or DIS. In Sweden, unlike Denmark, refugees cannot appeal an incorrect decision on their nationality or statelessness. Proving statelessness is made more problematic as in Sweden there are restrictions on the use of documentation from certain countries/authorities who are known to host large stateless population. The inability to challenge incorrect assessments may lead to difficulties in securing a permanent residence permit or naturalisation, as both require a confirmation of the identity of the applicant. Further to this, residence in Sweden based on an incorrect identity is not considered to count towards meeting the residency requirement for naturalisation. Further to this only those with permanent residence can benefit from the provisions which allow those whose identity has not been established to naturalise. However, securing permanent residence itself requires that the applicant’s identity has been established. The impacts of the temporary asylum laws in the two states, with regard to barriers stateless refugees face in acquiring citizenship, vary. Given the high criteria for acquisition of permanent residence in Denmark, and following this, naturalisation, the temporary asylum laws will likely have little impact on increasing instances of indefinite statelessness. The introduction of the temporary asylum laws in Sweden will however have a more significant impact with regard to the prolongation of statelessness amongst refugees in the country. This is a result of the previously useful provision on facilitated naturalisation for refugees being undermined with the introduction of criteria for refugees who have received temporary residence status to meet in order to acquire a permanent residence permit, which would then lead to citizenship. The lack of SDP in the asylum procedures, or provisions in the Aliens Act that match the contents of Article 1C of the 1951 Convention on cessation of refugee status for stateless refugees is a significant concern in both Denmark and Sweden. There does not seem to be a consideration of the stateless refugees’ ability to return to their country of previous habitual residence, and an assessment of the rights they would receive upon return, contrary to UNHCR guidance. In addition to this neither state grant a protection status based solely on a person’s statelessness, in line with their obligations under the 1954 Convention. This would provide a safety net to avoid stateless former refugees being left with an uncertain status, in arbitrary detention or being caught in the ‘deportation gap’. With regard to the broader ramifications of the findings presented here, it is not possible to make generalisations on the impact of temporary asylum laws in