Purpose: This article's purpose is to examine how the balance between autonomy (stewardship) and control (principal-agent) has evolved over 2 decades through a comparative longitudinal study of university governance reforms in Denmark and Sweden. Design/methodology/approach: Employing a longitudinal comparative case study design, the study draws on extensive document analysis and applies a theory-driven analytical framework. It traces governance trajectories across two Nordic higher education systems, emphasising the impact of political reforms on university-state relations. Findings: The findings reveal divergent governance paths--Denmark has institutionalised a contractual, performance-driven model primarily emphasising principal-agent control, while Sweden has pursued a more devolved steered system, predominantly reflecting elements of stewardship. While the countries have marked differences, hybrid governance remains a dynamic and contested process in both contexts rather than a stable synthesis. Research limitations/implications: The study focuses primarily on senior university leadership and governmental actors; future research should examine how governance tensions manifest within faculties and among frontline academic leaders. Practical implications: Findings offer valuable insights for policymakers and higher education leaders aiming to design governance models that balance accountability with autonomy in increasingly complex environments. Originality/value: This study offers a rare two-decade comparative analysis of Nordic higher education governance. It critically extends existing theories of hybrid governance by showing how political cultures and reform strategies shape institutional autonomy and control. In doing so, it contributes to extant research on university governance by providing a more nuanced understanding of hybrid governance and its implications for universities' societal roles.