On one level this is correct and on another completely inaccurate.
Sweden is a parliamentary democracy, with members of the Riskdag elected on a proportional basis. Thus people vote not for a representative for their district, as in US and UK, but for a party, which then doles out its seats by its own criteria. A great many other countries operate on a similar system, which allows minority opinions to have some voice in the government.
We could have a good argument over whether this is a more or less democratic system than ours, but it is certainly not authoritarian in any real sense of the term.
As far as a "limited franchise" goes, Sweden had effective universal suffrage roughly 40 years before the US did.
A democratic system of election puts people into office who have been voted for by a large number of the general population. A non-democratic system of election simply puts people into office who have been selected by a handful of professional politicians.
Having party list voting is just as bad as having a class of titled nobles, some of whom are called to court to provide guidance to the administrators.
The crime commited by the advocates of party list voting is that they hold out the promise for '(ideational) minorities' to be represented ~ which never really happens since the same parliament is going to be ruled by 'the ruling coalition', so those 'minorities' get no representation at all.
Coalition politics are best played BEFORE the elections where you can actually have a substantial percentage of the electorate participating in who goes where, and why, and what issues will be featured should the candidates put forward by the coalition win.
Democracy, to exist, has to have a wide franchise so that vast numbers of the people can play a direct part at one stage or the other.
Countries trapped by party list voting can make a step towards democratic rule simply by establishing DISTRICTS with boundaries ~ where only one candidate can win.
“As far as a “limited franchise” goes, Sweden had effective universal suffrage roughly 40 years before the US did.”
No wonder they are further along the Socialst curve than we are!