This essay analyzes whether Sweden's beach protection rules are in need of change andwhat the consequences of those supposed changes are. The author argues that Swedenneeds stronger beach protection for the future, to preserve the beaches for futuregenerations and strengthen the legality of beach protection. The argument is based onthe Swedish beach protection is too easy to change and the time frame for a change isshort if there is a narrow political majority in the Riksdag. Beach protection is acontroversial issue between the landowner's right to use his land and the public's andnature's right to pristine beaches. The term is used in this essay as an ideal where theidea is for the reader to consider whether the beach protection fulfills an adequatefunction or not and whether it is worth preserving. The tension between landowners andthe public's interests, as well as nature's needs, is also highlighted throughout the essayto draw the conclusion that beach protection actually fulfills its function. A comparisonis made between current legislation and a proposed bill, which was never voted through,where the government proposed changes to beach protection. The essay also takes acloser look at whether landowners' willingness to build close to watercourses iscompatible with nature's needs. At the end of the essay are suggestions to strengthenbeach protection in Sweden. All suggestions are intended to extend the time framebefore changes can be made and do it more difficult to change beach protection with aweak political majority, and to give beach protection an elevating status in society.