While not all stateless people are refugees, or all refugees are stateless, some people do fall into both categories. This is unsurprising given that statelessness can be both the cause or consequence of forced migration (NRC and Tilburg University, 2014). This paper provides an analysis of the law and policy related to the identification, assessment and recording of the statelessness of refugees in the Danish and Swedish asylum procedures. It considers the gaps in law and policy that can lead to a stateless refugee remaining in a prolonged, or possibly indefinite, stateless situation. It will also compare the impacts of the temporary asylum laws adopted in Denmark in 2015 and Sweden in 2016 (The Danish Parliament, 2016; Migrationsverket, 2016d) with regard to the situation of indefinitely stateless refugees. This analysis is part of a larger research project The Statelessness of Refugees, which seeks to explore the relationship between statelessness and refugee-ness at global, national and individual level. The statelessness of refugees is by no means a minor issue in either the statelessness or refugee fields. In 2014, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), who have the mandate for both refugees and stateless people, reported it had 14.4 million people under its refugee mandate, nearly one in ten - 1.3 million - being stateless, (UNHCR, 2015; ISI, 2014, p. 125). However, despite this, the relationship between statelessness and refugee-ness receives surprisingly little attention. This paper is a comparative national level law and policy analysis, using Denmark and Sweden as case studies. Using secondary sources, the analysis was guided by the following questions: 1) How does the law and policy related to identifying statelessness in the asylum system, or addressing it following the acceptance of a refugee, contribute to, or address, the situation of indefinite statelessness for stateless refugees in Denmark and Sweden? 2) What are the impacts of the temporary asylum laws in both states with regard to the barriers stateless refugees face in acquiring citizenship? 3) How do the above relate to Denmark and Sweden’s obligations under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951 Convention) on the cessation of refugee status for stateless refugees (UN General Assembly, 1951, Article 1 C:2-3,6)? The comparative element allows us to consider how indefinite statelessness can arise in two asylum and citizenship frameworks that are often considered liberal (as in the case of Sweden) and more restrictive (as in the case of Denmark). Given that no analysis with a specific focus on the indefinite statelessness of refugees has been undertaken in either state, this should not be considered a comprehensive law and policy analysis on the issue. As an initial law and policy