Even in relatively corruption-free countries, there are often shadow mechanisms the governments uses to decide who they charge with a crime.
Prosecutors can just say they don't have a case, or they can fumble the case purposefully in the initial stages to give credence to the "no case" idea.
We don't have to look any further than how police charge themselves to see how the laws don't fairly apply to everyone. And a simple google search will reveal that Sweden is not immune to police corruption, which shouldn't surprise anyone.
"Disobeying police orders", which is what Thunberg was charged with, is one of those catch-all laws that are purposefully vague in a way that allows police total discretion over how to enforce it.
I guarantee in this case that calls were made all the way up the top of the Swedish government before police decided what to do here.
Basically, my point is that there are so many strings to pull, even in developed countries, that it's often possible to suss out the motivations of the administration just by examining how charges proceed.
What this says about Thunberg getting charged for her actions? Probably nothing significant. Sweden cannot allow activists to freely disrupt their economic infrastructure, especially those involving energy. So they charge her as "normal" regardless of her celebrity status. Though they will be very careful to do everything by the book with so many eyes on the case.
Could you even tell?
After all, we are in the era of advanced LLMs.