ABSTRACT Following COVID‐19, the responsibility principle guiding emergency preparedness and crisis management in Scandinavian countries has once again faced criticism. In order to make sense of the current discussions surrounding this principle, this study uses Bacchi's framework of “What's the problem represented to be” to explore its development and perceived problems and effects in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. The study examines how policy documents have problematized the responsibility principle and the historical contexts that prompted the adoption of the principle, tracing its evolution from 1989 to 2019, before the outbreak of COVID‐19. It scrutinizes the role of key institutions, legislative changes, and historical events, such as crises and geopolitical shifts, in shaping crisis management practices. The analysis identifies several recurring issues in crisis management, highlighting two overarching problems: fragmented responsibilities and difficulties in balancing decentralization with centralization, both of which result in insufficient coordination. By comparing the experiences of these countries, this study provides valuable insights into the historical foundations and organization of crisis management systems in Scandinavia prior to COVID‐19.