Here’s a thread on ideological divisions within the Swedish Social Democrats in 1930s and the ideological basis of the Swedish welfare state.
Screenshots taken from Just Institutions Matter (Rothstein, 1998)
Screenshots taken from Just Institutions Matter (Rothstein, 1998)
It’s been a matter of debate whether the Swedish welfare model was created in an effort to increase individual autonomy and furnish citizens with basic capabilities, or to paternalistically control citizens lives 
There were strains of both sentiments among the Social Democrats in the 1930s, as the welfare state was begining to be built up. On the paternalistic side, Alva Myrdal was the most prominent voice
In her influential book, “Crisis in the Population Question,” Myrdal took concerns about the dwindling population size, popular among social conservatives at the time, as jumping off point to push for an expanded, but deeply paternalistic, welfare state.
This has led some historians, like Yvonne Hirdman, to back up the idea that the welfare state was driven by a way to “put lives in order,” rather than to increase autonomy
This, however, ignores the other side of the debate, epitomized by Minister of Social Affairs, Gustav Möller
Möller was very skeptical of the existing poor relief laws, and wanted social policy based on clear rules that granted social rights rather than means-tested benefits at discretion of bureaucrats
Möller was concerned with the long term sustainability of his policies, believing that more universal programs would command stronger electoral support. He was uninterested in the population question, except insofar as it was an opportunity to build support for social programs
In policy terms, the distinction was that Myrdal pushed for “the in-kind line,” essentially single-payer food, clothes, shoes, and more, targeted at the “truly needy”. Meanwhile Möller pushed for universal cash benefits, trusting people to use the money well
Möller’s view would ultimately win out - he oversaw the implementation of cash maternity allowances, widows pensions, free childbirth and maternity care services, anti-discrimination laws and more.
All in all, it seems clear that while there were some paternalistic views popular at the time, the policies that were actually implemented were driven by a desire to expand, not restrict, individual autonomy
