Learn Hardcore Swedish: Hon frågar om det finns någon kompromiss som kan ge alla mer trygghet. - She asks if there is any compromise that can give everyone more security.

Hon frågar om du kommer. – She asks if you’re coming.
Hon frågar vad du gör. – She asks what you’re doing. (here you use vad, not om, because it’s a “wh‑question”)

So: after fråga + a whole clause (if there is any compromise), Swedish normally uses om to mean if / whether.

What exactly does det finns mean, and why do we need det there?

Det finns is an existential construction meaning “there is / there are”.

Det finns en bok på bordet. – There is a book on the table.
Det finns många problem. – There are many problems.

The det here is a “dummy subject” (sometimes called an expletive). It doesn’t refer to anything concrete; it just fills the subject position, similar to English there in “there is / there are”.

You can’t normally drop det:

✔ Det finns någon kompromiss …
✘ Finns någon kompromiss … (wrong as a statement; but see the next question for questions)

What is the difference between det finns and finns det?

The words det and finns can be inverted for questions, just like English “there is” → “is there?”.

Statement: Det finns någon kompromiss.
There is some compromise.
Yes/no question: Finns det någon kompromiss?
Is there any compromise?

In your sentence, om det finns någon kompromiss is a subordinate clause (if there is any compromise), so it keeps the statement order det finns, not finns det.

Why do we say någon kompromiss instead of en kompromiss?

Någon here means “any” (or “some kind of”) in a non‑specific way:

någon kompromiss = any compromise / some compromise or other

Using en kompromiss would sound more specific, like “a particular compromise” that the speaker has in mind:

Hon frågar om det finns en kompromiss som…
Could imply a (certain) compromise they’ve been talking about.

With någon kompromiss, she is asking more generally: “Is there any compromise at all that could give everyone more security?”

What’s the difference between någon, något, and några?

These are all related and correspond roughly to some / any in English:

någon – with en‑words (common gender, singular)
- någon kompromiss (en‑word) – some/any compromise
- någon bok (en bok)
något – with ett‑words (neuter, singular)
- något problem (ett problem) – some/any problem
- något hus (ett hus)
några – plural, for both genders
- några kompromisser – some compromises
- några böcker – some books

So någon kompromiss is correct because kompromiss is an en‑word (en kompromiss).

What does the word kompromiss imply in Swedish? Is it used like “compromise” in English?

Yes, kompromiss is very close to English compromise:

It’s an en‑word: en kompromiss, kompromissen, kompromisser, kompromisserna
It means a solution where both/all sides give up something to meet in the middle.

Examples:

Vi måste hitta en kompromiss.
We have to find a compromise.
Det här är en dålig kompromiss.
This is a bad compromise.

In your sentence, någon kompromiss is any middle‑ground solution that could increase everyone’s sense of security.

What is the function of som in som kan ge alla mer trygghet?

Som introduces a relative clause, similar to English that / which / who.

…någon kompromiss som kan ge alla mer trygghet.
= …any compromise that can give everyone more security.

Here:

kompromiss is the noun being described.
som stands for “that” and acts as the subject of the relative clause:
- som kan ge alla mer trygghet
  literally: that can give everyone more security

Without som, the sentence would be ungrammatical. You need it to connect kompromiss with the descriptive clause.

Why is it kan ge (present) and not something like skulle kunna ge (would/could give)? What nuance does kan have here?

Kan is the present tense of kunna, and it usually corresponds to English can or “is able to” / “is capable of”.

som kan ge alla mer trygghet
= that can give everyone more security
= that is able to / is capable of giving…

If you said:

som skulle kunna ge alla mer trygghet
= that could / would be able to give everyone more security

That sounds more hypothetical or tentative. Kan ge is a bit more direct: she’s asking whether there is a compromise that actually has the capacity to give more security, not just theoretically could maybe do so.

Both are grammatically fine; the sentence as given chooses the more straightforward kan ge.

Why is it ge alla mer trygghet and not ge mer trygghet till alla? Are both possible?

Both are possible, but ge alla mer trygghet is shorter and very natural.

ge alla mer trygghet
literally: give everyone more security
Here, alla functions as an indirect object directly after ge.
ge mer trygghet till alla
literally: give more security to everyone
Here, alla comes in a till‑phrase instead.

Swedish commonly allows both a bare indirect object or a till‑phrase:

Ge mig boken. / Ge boken till mig.
Give me the book. / Give the book to me.

In your sentence, the version without till is simply more compact and idiomatic.

What’s the difference between trygghet and säkerhet? Why use trygghet here?

Both relate to “safety/security”, but the nuance differs:

trygghet – a feeling of safety, emotional or social security, stability
- Trygg barndom – a safe/secure childhood
- ekonomisk trygghet – financial security (feeling your finances are stable)
säkerhet – more concrete safety, security measures, lack of danger
- IT‑säkerhet – IT security
- flygsäkerhet – flight safety

In mer trygghet, the focus is on people feeling safer and more secure in their lives or situation. That’s why trygghet is more natural than säkerhet here.

Why isn’t there any reflexive pronoun like sig in ge alla mer trygghet? Would ge sig själv trygghet ever be used?

Here, alla means “everyone” in general, not specifically referring back to hon. She is asking about giving more security to all people, not to herself.

Hon frågar om det finns någon kompromiss som kan ge alla mer trygghet.
She asks if there is any compromise that can give everyone more security.

A reflexive pronoun like sig is used when the object refers back to the subject of the same clause:

Hon ger sig själv mer trygghet.
She gives herself more security.

But in your sentence:

The subject of the relative clause is som (= the kompromiss).
The object/indirect object is alla (= everyone).

There is no reason to refer back to hon with sig here.

Is the word order in Hon frågar om det finns någon kompromiss som kan ge alla mer trygghet flexible, or must it stay exactly like this?

Most of the word order here is fixed because of Swedish grammar rules, especially in the subordinate clause:

om det finns – subordinate clause = conjunction (om) + subject (det) + verb (finns)
någon kompromiss – must follow as the complement of finns
som kan ge alla mer trygghet – relative clause; som must come directly after kompromiss

You can make minor stylistic changes, for example:

Hon undrar om det finns någon kompromiss som kan ge alla mer trygghet.
(undrar instead of frågar)
Hon frågar om det finns någon kompromiss som kan ge mer trygghet åt alla.
(åt alla instead of alla)

But things like:

✘ Hon frågar om finns det någon kompromiss… (English‑style inversion)
are ungrammatical in Swedish subordinate clauses.

So the structure of om det finns … som kan ge … is essentially fixed.