One thing missed by the article is that Sweden was one of the few European highly industrialized nations that weren't ravaged by WWII (due to their neutrality, in turn due their perceived Arianism by Germany), so in 1946, they could start making and selling stuff to Europe which desperately needed, well, everything.
As opposed to Denmark and Norway? It's more likely that the Germans got what they wanted anyway (Sweden sold Germany a lot of steel) and didn't have resources to occupy Sweden just for the principle of it.
Sweden somewhat collaborated with Germany during WWII as well, and probably got a break therefrom, though they also helped the allies and some Scandinavian Jews.
It's not like they had any particular interest in Norway, either. It was only about preventing the Brits from setting up shop, which they were in fact poised to do.
Norway was pretty important. Hitler wanted lots of coastline from which to send hidden submarines to torpedo British shipping. And Norway has lots of coastline with convenient fjords to hide stuff in.
Denmark was important both as the gateway to Norway, and to control the gateway to the Baltic. With those two in German hands, they didn't need Sweden anymore.
Not to get too deep into the historical weeds, but several neutral, "Aryan" nations were invaded during the war. Doesn't it seem more likely that Sweden was fortunate enough to be geographically isolated between Russian-held Finland and German-held (and more strategically significant) Norway? Swap the government and population of Sweden for Denmark and I suspect nothing changes.
