Many countries face growing challenges of democratic governance from political polarizationand the increasingly complex nature of policy problems. The question is then how can governments build consensus and confer legitimacy on policy proposals in an environment where negotiating agreement among competing interests is increasingly difficult? In the past, many governments have dealt with these types of challenges by appointing ad hoc, independent commissions of experts and stakeholders from both sides of the political aisle to provide independent policy advice and to serve as an arena for political negotiation. Such commissions have been especially prevalent in Sweden, known for its rational and consensus-oriented policy making process. Drawing on a unique database, we investigate whether Swedish commissions can still fulfill their role as the cornerstone of the Swedish policymak-ing process. We analyze commissions with regard to their membership, political independence, and resources. We find that broadly representative commissions with policy stakeholders and parliamen-tary politicians, which havehistorically constituted about 50 percent of Swedish commissions of in-quiry, are now only a small fraction of commissions. The government is also exerting more control over commission outcomes by giving a greater number of directives. However, commission resources have stayed about the same, and commission do not appear to be used as a tactical electoral tool.