"Sweden on Wednesday confirmed Magdalena Andersson as its first female leader.... Hours after assuming office, Andersson resigned from the post..."

"... when a member of the ruling coalition, the center-left Swedish Green party, quit the government in protest after lawmakers passed a budget bill backed by three right-wing parties. Andersson’s Social Democratic Party had put forward an alternative budget proposal that failed to pass. Andersson said she hopes to form a single-party ruling government. Andersson had briefly joined the ranks of around two dozen current female heads of state and government.... Around half of those women head European countries."

So says WaPo, in "Sweden elected its first female leader. She resigned hours later."

I had trouble understanding that. The article is much more concerned about generic female achievement than explaining what happened in Sweden. The top-rated comment supplies what I think is the actual news:

The article is misleading.

Andersson's party, the Social Democrats, initially formed an administration that included the Green Party. Hours later, the Green Party withdrew in protest over a budget bill. This was already a minority administration (meaning the parties that comprised it don't have a majority in parliament).

Andersson didn't "resign"—she agreed it was best to dissolve the administration entirely and start negotiations over. It would have been questionable of her to resist that process. She stated she does not want to govern without a clear mandate.

As the article states, she hopes to form a new administration only comprised of the Social Democrats. Whether this is the case, or whether they team up with another party, she will almost certainly be the Prime Minister for whatever administration they form next. Her ousting is temporary. Any other result of the re-negotiations would be very surprising.

Multi-party parliamentary systems, especially those with many small parties, can be puzzling to American readers. The idea that you vote for a party, not a person, and that the parties negotiate to form an administration is also a foreign concept. I know the NYT [sic] assumed a level of education among its readers, but the comments show that readers are clearly confused. I don't blame them; this article framed things in a misleading way and did not provide enough context.

I hope this was helpful, fellow readers.