This is not about Sweden and it is not about schools letting students in or not. This is about greater choice: parents like Jolanda, in collaboration with their childrens wishes, would be able to choose the school that their children attended, be it public or private, and still be funded by the government regardless. This is about the Government giving every single student the same benefits in their schooling.
This would mean that parents who could not previously afford the 15,000 fees of the private school their child wished to attend (and which they would also like their child to attend/would be happy to see their child attend) may be able to afford such education for their child, as the voucher may make up enough of that sum, that the differnce becomes affordable.

Not only would this make the education system much fairer for all students, it may also help with poverty levels.
Unfortunatly the cycle of poverty and bad education levels are linked, as often young people who come from violent/disrupted backgrounds do not get a good education (maybe from parents who do not support them/cannot support them, etc.) and therefore cannot find work. this catapults them into poverty, where they can't get a job because they lack skills that would have been learnt through a better/higher education, and therefore cannot earn money to allow them to return to schooling/university, to get skills that would enable them to get a job. and so on and so forth.

Ena has been saying that vouchers would not mean that public schools outside Jolanda's area would take her children or make special considerations because of vouchers. but that is not the point. What Jolanda is saying is that it might allow her to send her children to private schools which do not have district living requirements because the differnce that would need to be paid between the voucher value and the fees would be much more affordable than what private school fees currently are.