This essay aims to examine which consequences a less-detail controlled curriculum has on English teachers’ choice of English-language literature. With support from the literature review, this essay argues that an unofficial, tacit school canon of English-language literature mainly composed of ten literary works seems to have been established in Swedish upper-secondary schools, despite the Swedish National Curriculum not naming specific literary works educators in Sweden are required to use in their teaching. Thus, this essay answers the following questions: 1) Which English-language literature do English teachers in Sweden use in their teaching? 2) Does a less-detail controlled curriculum contribute to English teachers in Sweden being more inclusive in their choice of literature in teaching? The results support the hypothesis; that despite the ten literary works found in the unofficial, tacit school canon might be vulnerable to the same criticism aimed at the “Western literary canon” and a “prescribed” curriculum. Yet, no evidence was found which would illustrate that a less detail-controlled curriculum does not contribute to English teachers in Sweden being more inclusive in their choice of literature in teaching since the inclusive classroom is not only a matter of what is being taught but also of how it is being taught. Additionally, the study shows that there are countries in the Western world that name literary works as a teaching requirement for educators that “silently” marginalize and privilege some voices. Despite educators not being able to influence what is being taught, educators have developed strategies and methods (critical literacy/pedagogy, and intersectionality) on how these literary works are taught to learners with the aim to make room for a spectrum of voices when being required to teach from a “prescribed” curriculum.