Scandinavia benefits from being resource rich countries with small populations. That's how Canada and Australia weathered the recession, as well. The welfare state came after their wealth, and did not lead to it.
Sweden in particular also benefits from a rather favorable regulatory environment and low corporate taxation. Swedes choose to spend their wealth on a caretaker government that taxes exorbitantly in exchange for a degree of financial security. However, it isn't free. Your "free" tuition and child benefits come by paying 20% more for everything you buy, having a tax rate of 20% for even the lowest of incomes (vs our rates in the low single digits or even negative), and similar costs.
Don't think that all that "security" is free from a social perspective, as well. Central planners in Denmark, for instance, decide how many slots to open up at universities for each profession. There's a reason the US has average-at-best performing grade schools and high schools, but most of the top universities in the world. Our children don't suddenly become smarter the summer they turn 18. Our expensive universities simply outperform the "free" universities elsewhere and offer hundreds of different programs that simply don't exist elsewhere, and as a result attract the top students from all over the world.
----------
No, that's not what I'm suggesting. However, the US has pulled more than its weight in defending the EU, and it's disingenuous for the EU to criticize our military spending when a big reason it is so much is that we directly or indirectly subsidize NATO countries. If we weren't around, most EU countries would pay a lot more to defend themselves and wouldn't have as much for a generous welfare state. To use the favorite term of Keynesians, the EU has been freeloading for 7 decades now.
