Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Frihet til å elske hvem man vil er viktig for alle. - Freedom to love whomever you want is important for everyone.

Norwegian often drops the article when talking about abstract, general concepts such as frihet (freedom), kjærlighet (love), rettferdighet (justice), etc.

Frihet til å elske hvem man vil er viktig for alle.
= Freedom to love whoever one wants is important for everyone.

If you say:

Friheten til å elske hvem man vil er viktig for alle.

it is also correct, but it sounds a bit more specific or more rhetorical, like “That particular freedom / this freedom to love whoever one wants…”.

So:

No article (frihet) = talking about freedom as a general idea.
Definite article (friheten) = the specific, well-known freedom (more emphatic or specific).

Why do we say frihet til å elske and not frihet å elske?

In Norwegian, when you talk about the freedom/right/possibility to do something, you almost always use til å + infinitive:

frihet til å elske – freedom to love
rett til å stemme – right to vote
mulighet til å reise – possibility to travel

The preposition til is required here. Saying frihet å elske would sound wrong or at least very unnatural.

So the pattern is:

[frihet / rett / mulighet / lyst] + til å + [infinitive]

Why is it å elske and not elsker in this sentence?

Å elske is the infinitive form, like “to love” in English. You use the infinitive after til å:

til å spise – to eat
til å lese – to read
til å elske – to love

Elsker is the present tense (“love(s)”), and that is not used after til å. So:

Jeg elsker deg. – I love you.
Frihet til å elske hvem man vil… – Freedom to love whoever one wants…

The rule: after til å, use the infinitive (elske, not elsker).

What exactly does hvem man vil mean, and why is it hvem and not som?

Hvem man vil literally means “whomever one wants” / “who(ever) one wants”.

hvem is a question/relative word for persons (who/whom).
man vil = “one wants (to)”, in the impersonal sense (people in general).

You use hvem when the word refers to a person and functions as the object of the verb (the one being loved).
You use som more like English “who/that” as a relative pronoun introducing a clause:

Personen som jeg elsker – The person who I love.

But in structures like “whomever one wants”, Norwegian uses hvem:

hvem man vil – whomever one wants
hvem hun liker – who(ever) she likes

So hvem man vil is a fixed-type structure: hvem + [subject] + [verb] = who(ever) X [verb].

What does man mean here? Can I replace it with jeg or du?

Man is an impersonal pronoun, like English “one” or very general “you/people”:

hvem man vil – whoever one wants / whoever you want / whoever people want

It does not refer specifically to I or you; it means people in general.

You could say:

hvem du vil – whoever you want

but that would change the meaning to talk directly to you (a specific person), not about people in general.

Other related forms you might see/hear:

en – a more dialectal or informal alternative to man in some areas.
folk – people (can sometimes replace man, but with a slightly different feel).

In this sentence, man is the standard, neutral way to express a general subject.

Does vil here mean “will” (future) or “want”?

In this sentence, vil expresses want/choose, not future:

hvem man vil = whoever one wants (to)

So the best translation is closer to:

“the freedom to love whomever you want”

Vil can mean:

Want / wish / choose
- Jeg vil ha kaffe. – I want coffee.
- Hvem man vil. – Whoever one wants.
Will / be going to (future-like), but Norwegian usually prefers present tense + time expression instead of a special future tense.

Here it’s clearly meaning want, not future.

What is the subject of the sentence? It looks long and confusing.

The entire first part is the subject:

Frihet til å elske hvem man vil = The freedom to love whomever one wants

Then comes the verb and the rest:

er viktig for alle. = is important for everyone.

So the structure is:

[Subject] Frihet til å elske hvem man vil
[Verb] er
[Predicate] viktig for alle

Even though the subject is long, grammatically it is just one noun phrase (Frihet + the following infinitive phrase that explains what kind of freedom).

Why is it viktig and not viktige?

Viktig is an adjective meaning “important”. After the verb er (to be), adjectives are used in their basic form for singular, unless the subject is clearly plural and definite.

Here, the subject Frihet til å elske hvem man vil is a singular, abstract idea, so you use:

er viktig – is important

If the subject were clearly plural and definite, you might use viktige:

Disse frihetene er viktige. – These freedoms are important.

But with a general, singular abstract concept like frihet, viktig (not viktige) is correct.

Why is it viktig for alle and not viktig til alle?

In Norwegian, the adjective viktig (important) is normally followed by for when you mean “important for someone”:

viktig for meg – important for me
viktig for samfunnet – important for society
viktig for alle – important for everyone

Til is used for movement/direction or for giving something to someone:

Gi boken til henne. – Give the book to her.
Reise til Norge. – Travel to Norway.

So after viktig, you almost always say for + person/group, not til.

Can I say Friheten til å elske hvem man vil er viktig for alle instead? Is there a difference?

Yes, that sentence is also grammatically correct:

Frihet til å elske hvem man vil er viktig for alle.
Friheten til å elske hvem man vil er viktig for alle.

The difference is nuance:

Frihet… (no article) – freedom in general, more neutral, more common in general statements.
Friheten… (with -en) – the freedom, referring to this specific freedom, often a bit more emphatic or rhetorical, like you are highlighting this particular, known freedom.

Both can be used; the version without the article sounds a bit more like a general principle, which fits well in this kind of sentence.