'Been to' sounds much better. I mean, I understand 'been in' is more literal but I wouldn't say that in English.
But, I very well might say Iceland is the only country I haven't been in, having landed there a few times, but never having left the airport, though most often I would say, "the only country I haven't been to (or visited).
Agree, it should be accepted.
Why is inte before har here?
In a negative subclause, inte will commonly move to place itself before the verb.
I like that Swedes don't move inte but rather inte moves itself.
Tack så mycket! :)
I wrote " France is the only country which I have not been in" but it was not accepted!
What is the difference between bara and enda?
Bara is more like just - just a minute, just right. Enda is more like only or unique.
It helps me remember enda as the implied last country.
I find this hard to believe. ;)
Why is "det enda land" with no postpositive article also a valid option here? A Google search indicates that this is common usage, but what is the grammatical logic here?
If the noun is further defined by the subclause, the indefinite form of the noun can be used in a construction such as this.
Jag har svårt att tro det här!
How could one visit Monaco without being in France? Ship?
The "jag" sounds funny in this sentence. It sounded more like "zhay" to me.
We often say land for country, i.e. the song, "this land is my land, this land is your land"
Is the last 'in' necessary at all?
Yes, because I've never been a country. Have you?