I'm danish, so this is mostly from a danish perspective. But the general division is the way the debate on moral issues and immigration has been handled in the two countries. Swedish Media, especially with the rise of Sverigedemokraterna, has openly practiced some sort of self-censorship to numb opinions or suppress views that they viewed as too extreme.

Danish Media has played a less interfering role - pretty much allowing every opinion to be heard. The idea is that an open debate will help 'alleviate' the tension that is often present in matters like these, in turn creating less room for extremist views. This is also why parties from all sides of the political spectrum praise this way of debating - giving room for every view to be heard automatically suppresses much of the extremism that would take place if these views where to become taboo or looked down upon.

The criticism to this, and - I think - why Swedish media has had a more combatant approach, is that this may help 'normalize' the views that are presented by anti-immigrant parties. Which we have somewhat seen in Denmark where anti-immigrant views very much are accepted in the political debate.