I am glad to see that the first few pages' slightly rose-tinted view of the circumstances of bringing up children has had a bit of a reality check from other people (in addition to me) who have given other perspectives. There are loads of things that are good - the fact that everyone can access childcare for very little money is fantastic. The fact that it sometimes leads to children spending a lot of time there is problematic, but rarely seen by people who choose to/feel forced to make use of many hours of childcare.
(The problems with having too many children per group/per staff member has been quite widely advertised over the past 5 years at least by staff in settings who testify about how impossible their jobs have become. I just read a report today which showed that in councils in Stockholm county, only 29.8 % FTE staff in nurseries have the college education that everyone seems to think all staff members have taken. The majority hasn't (and may still be fantastic staff of course!).)
@sw1v, OP, your view of your family and how things work for you is more or less incompatible with the Swedish vision of how life should work for women, men, parents and children. Your statement that it would be impossible for your husband to take parental leave just wouldn't cut it there. There are many entrepreneurs in Sweden - male and female - and somehow they manage. Some struggle, but few. And your husband, if he'd been working in Sweden, would have been completely moulded in expectations that he would take considerable responsibility for his children. Why would he have them otherwise..? It would be a very unusual, and probably not very well seen man, who would choose not to spend time with his children when they're young. And yes, this includes very well paid men - they will likely take fewer days/weeks than their spouses, but they will still take some.
It should be said that there are some small conservative groups that lobby for changing the tax system so that it'd be cheaper for the woman to stay at home (eg joint taxation to lower the tax for the family - this was removed in the early 70s in Sweden).
This has the advantage that headings like the one I saw in a UK women's magazine less than 10 years ago are extinct in Sweden. It said 'Are you one of the lucky ones whose husband babysits his children?' I remember feeling flabbergasted reading it - surely there would be outrage - surely nobody would accept that/think that was a suitable heading? But no - few reactions. Very strange for a Scandinavian.
This has other consequences too. The concept of 'primary carer' doesn't exist. When a social worker friend of mine, who worked with contact, told me that a not unusual outcome of divorce in the UK was that the woman kept the family house 'since she had to have it since she had to continue to care for the children'. The man had to continue paying for it though, which sometimes resulted in his having to move in with his parents, unable to afford a second home for himself - which led to his sometimes struggling to be allowed to have his children overnight, since his home wasn't suitable! This is completely unthinkable to a Scandinavian - in Scandinavia, the starting point following a divorce is always that both parents will get 50 % of the time and shared custody. If one parent hasn't spent that much time with the children before the divorce, well it's his/her turn to step up then! It is very common for children to move between homes every week (and yes there are obviously issues with that too! I'm not a great fan myself. Acquaintances of mine solved it by keeping the family home for the children, and renting a small flat with two bedrooms where each parent took turn living a week at a time. Great for the children, but few people are as unselfish as they were.
So no, to summarise, your way of life probably would not have been a great fit for Sweden. But it is highly likely that you would have had other world views if you'd grown up there - you'd have been very likely to want to use your degree, to want your husband to take much more responsiblity for his children (your writing that it wouldn't have been safe to leave him with them is almost laughable) and to want to partake in society more than being your children's driver/cook/cleaner etc etc. It simply would not have been a very fulfilling life for you since there would be very few people in your situation to do anything with at all, just like many people have written.