U ovom se radu uspoređuju shvaćanja dvojnog državljanstva u politikama građanstva triju država članica Europske unije – Švedske, Njemačke i Hrvatske – koje dijele jedan bitan zajednički element: dugotrajno etničko shvaćanje nacije i dominantno načelo ius sanguinis u određenju državljanstva. Međutim, te se tri države razlikuju prema odnosu prema dvojnom državljanstvu. Švedska se uvrštava u liberalnu skupinu zemalja, a Njemačka i Hrvatska u restriktivnu, pri čemu i među njima postoje razlike jer se njemačka politika građanstva mijenjala u liberalnijem smjeru, dok je hrvatska ostala restriktivna i nekonzistentna. To se objašnjava ovisnošću politike građanstva o dominantnom shvaćanju nacije u nekoj zemlji te shvaćanjem procesa njezina oblikovanja, kontinuiteta i promjene u njemu, kao ishoda političkih borbi dominantnih aktera za ostvarenje svojih političkih ciljeva. This paper compares the understandings of dual citizenship in citizenship policies of three EU member states – Sweden, Germany, and Croatia. They all share one important element: long-term ethnic understanding of the nation and the dominance of the ius sanguinis principle in determining citizenship rights. The analysis showed that these three states significantly differ in the attitude of their citizenship policies towards dual citizenship. Sweden has liberal, while German and Croatia have restrictive policies. At the same time German policy is shifting in the liberal direction, while Croatian maintained its restrictiveness. The citizenship policies depend on the dominant understanding of the nation, but their development is the product of political conflicts between political actors focused on their specific goals. Sweden followed the multicultural model with the social democratic politics of the welfare stare as a “home” for all its inhabitants, which led to the consensual acceptance of dual citizenship. Germany followed the assimilationist politics, which at the beginning denied the existence of immigrants, treating them as a temporary phenomenon (“guest” workers), but then it accepted the reality of their existence. Both states had their traditional understandings of the nation and the citizens, with the principle of ius sanguinis as the basis for citizenship rights, remodelled in accordance with the challenges faced by the political elite, and depending on the dominance of ideologically left or right political forces. Transformation of citizenship policies in Sweden and Germany can show us how they decided, despite the strength of the ethnic understanding of the nation, to move towards gradual acceptance of the understanding that the nation is based on its citizens, mostly under the influence of them becoming emigrant countries. In contrast, Croatia led inconsistent citizenship policy. In the 1990s Croatia introduced ethnically-based dual citizenship, which was partly constrained after the changes in 2011, but with simultaneous tightening of naturalization rights for foreigners. Croatia, thus, transformed its citizenship policy, albeit in the form of restrictive normalisation.