Refusing a field sobriety test is not illegal and it is not a refusal to test. FSTs are voluntary.

Refusing a chemical test is a refusal to test. They are not voluntary. They are implied consent.

So if you're asked to do a field sobriety test, you can simply say "no, let's go straight to the breathalyzer."

Thank you for the Dean Martin/Foster Brooks memory lane bit.
Dean Martin could be exhibit A on society's change in attitude towards drinking. (and smoking for that matter).

In the 80's, I was going through new hire ground school at an airline that hosted "beer call" on Friday nights at a bar near the airport for us newbies. A few line pilots would drop by to hoist one with us.
My opinion of the practice is neutral, but can you imagine any airline doing so today?

The times changed in more ways than Dylan anticipated.

Except laws work differently in ither parts of the world. Sweden does not have a culture of civil suits the way the US does.
Seeking damages really isn't much of a thing there.
The government would likely find that the system worked as intended; a pilot was suspected of intoxication, was detained in the interest of public safety, retested in accordance with standard practices after which the pilot was free to go.
Attempting to apply US legal principles outside of US jurisdiction is fairly ignorant.

you can still sue the manufacturer of the breathalyzer for a faulty product from the good old USA

The law in Sweden seems to specifically allow remuneration. Maybe you’re more familiar than I am but I’m looking at Public Law 1972:207 Chapter 3 Paragraph 2 and it seems like it’s a possibility. Haven’t read further as to whether it applies to non-citizens harmed by the state so you’re probably right.

That's certainly an option, especially if the manufacturer is producing its products or does business within the US.
But I would think it's still an uphill battle, the pilot would have to prove damages. Like loss of pay. Assuming the pilot was pay protected, what kind of damages could she then go after?
You would also have to prove that the equipment itself was faulty. What if it was user error? Was the equipment calibrated in accordance with manufacturers guidelines? etc.

Cannonball Run. Hysterical movie.

It may very well allow for that. But from a purely practical standpoint, you just don't see that kind of litigation in Sweden. Civil suites aren't really part of the culture there.
And interestingly (something I learned recently) they don't have a jury of peers in the same sense that we do.
Instead they have a panel of peers who act along side of the judge. Usually there are 3 people involved in the judging process. The judge in charge of the proceedings acts as the legal expert and the other two are co judging from the pool of "peers". These people are from the general public who get invited and receive special training. I may have muddled some of the nuances here, but I though it an interesting cultural difference to how we do business here.

Anybody have a link to the statement or article that says this was a false positive?

You are WRONG. The first article clearly stated she was female. With the said, who cares if she was female or male? Alcohol issues can affect either.

https://www.thesegoldwings.com/delta...gasmPKFsnRq6og