Clearly, establishing new nuclear power plants is not economical - anywhere.
As for keeping existing plants running, its a matter of establishing a cheaper, alternative supply so a planned, orderly phase out can be done - assuming none of the several serious problems with nuclear power are urgently pressing - and my argument is that Sweden is not suffering from these pressing problems.
And as I pointed out, Sweden is increasing its CO2-free, non-nuclear power production via wind turbines, which are (or at least have been) cheaper than PV.
As for Germany, it is my understanding that Angela Merkel seized the opportunity offered by the Japanese nuclear disaster to get Germany started on its phase-out of nuclear power. From the point of view of minimizing CO2-pollution it was too early, but if she had waited, there would not have been the political will to do so at all. An example of Realpolitik. Another such example is that Germany keeps its DDR-era lignite power production alive, so as to keep the labor in that obsolete and seriously polluting industry employed.