This article argues that even if working-class literature has often been marginalized within literary studies, scholars interested in it – including scholars within the field of working-class studies – should not alienate themselves from that discipline. Instead, they should claim a space for the study of working-class literature within it. The main reason for this is that the insistence on working-class literature’s literariness will contribute to a more solid theorizing of it, which will also benefit its study within other contexts, such as working-class studies. The argument is based on a discussion of Swedish working-class poet Stig Sjödin (1917–93) and his reception by literary historians. Sjödin was active both on the book market and within the labour movement. However, the latter part of his oeuvre has been largely ignored within literary studies, which illustrates the narrow understanding of literature within the discipline. Drawing on theories put forward by Marjorie Perloff and Rita Felski, the article argues that the study of working-class and labour movement literature can function as a catalyst for challenging this understanding and for promoting a more inclusive conceptualization of literature and literary aesthetics.