Under diskussionen frågade hon varför min underskrift saknades på sista sidan.

Under here means during, not underneath. So Under diskussionen means during the discussion.

• under diskussionen = during the discussion
• i diskussionen = in the discussion, as part of the discussion/content

Both can be possible in other contexts, but here the sentence is talking about when she asked, so under is the natural choice.

Because Swedish often uses the definite form when English uses the.

• diskussion = discussion
• diskussionen = the discussion

So Under diskussionen literally means During the discussion.

The definite ending is attached to the noun itself, instead of using a separate word like the.

This is because Swedish is a V2 language in main clauses. That means the finite verb usually comes in the second position.

The sentence begins with Under diskussionen, so that takes the first position. Then the verb must come next:

• Under diskussionen frågade hon ...

If you started with the subject instead, you would get:

• Hon frågade under diskussionen ...

Both are grammatical, but they emphasize things slightly differently. Starting with Under diskussionen puts focus on the time frame.

Because varför min underskrift saknades is a subordinate clause after frågade hon.

In Swedish, subordinate clauses usually do not use the main-clause question word order. So:

• main question: Varför saknades min underskrift?
• indirect question/subordinate clause: ... varför min underskrift saknades

This is very common:

• Jag vet inte var han bor.
• Hon frågade varför min underskrift saknades.

So the English learner should notice that Swedish behaves a lot like English here:

• Why was my signature missing? = direct question
• She asked why my signature was missing. = indirect question

Yes, both can refer to a signature, but they are not always identical in tone.

• underskrift = signature, often a bit more formal or document-related
• namnteckning = signature, often more everyday and literally name-writing

In a sentence about a missing signature on a final page of a document, underskrift sounds very natural.

In Swedish, a possessive usually replaces the article.

So you say:

• min underskrift = my signature

Not:

• en min underskrift
• den min underskrift

This is similar to English: we say my signature, not the my signature.

Also:

• min is used with a singular common-gender noun
• underskrift is a common-gender noun (en underskrift)

So min underskrift is the correct form.

Good question. Saknas often looks like a passive form, and historically it is related to an -s form, but in modern Swedish it is very commonly used as its own verb meaning:

• to be missing
• to be absent

So:

• min underskrift saknades = my signature was missing

You can think of saknas as a normal dictionary form you simply have to learn.

Common forms:

• saknas = is missing / are missing
• saknades = was missing / were missing
• har saknats = has/have been missing

Both are in the simple past:

• frågade = asked
• saknades = was missing

This is normal because the sentence is describing a past event:

1. there was a discussion
2. during it, she asked
3. the thing she asked about was the missing signature

Swedish often uses the simple past in narration where English also would.

With words like sista, förra, nästa, and similar expressions, Swedish often omits den.

So both of these can occur:

• på sista sidan
• på den sista sidan

But på sista sidan is very natural and common.

Here:

• sista = last
• sidan = the page

So the phrase means on the last page.

Because it refers to a specific page: the last page.

• sida = page
• sidan = the page

Since sista identifies a specific page, the noun appears in the definite form:

• sista sidan = the last page

This is a very common Swedish pattern.

Yes, absolutely. That version is also grammatical.

Compare:

• Under diskussionen frågade hon varför ...
• Hon frågade under diskussionen varför ...

The difference is mainly focus and style.

• Starting with Under diskussionen highlights when it happened.
• Starting with Hon is more neutral and subject-focused.

Both are natural Swedish.

No. Here it introduces an indirect question.

Direct question:

• Varför saknades min underskrift på sista sidan?

Indirect question:

• Hon frågade varför min underskrift saknades på sista sidan.

That difference is important because it affects the word order.

Yes. In this sentence, was missing is the most natural translation.

• min underskrift saknades = my signature was missing

Was absent is possible in some contexts, but it sounds less natural in English for a signature on a document. So was missing is the best choice here.