In a number of European countries (e.g. Belgium), analgesic nephropathy continues to be a highly prevalent renal disease, whereas in other countries (e.g. Sweden) the problem has been resolved after legislative measures were taken. In still other countries, e.g. France, the official prevalence of analgesic nephropathy has always been low. The aim of the present study is to detect whether specific legislation in particular countries has played a role in the prevalence of analgesic nephropathy. Hence, we compared analgesic legislation in Belgium, France and Sweden, and then compared it with the respective sales data of non-narcotic analgesics and with the prevalence data of analgesic nephropathy in the dialysis population. Each investigated country represents a different evolution pattern in the prevalence of analgesic nephropathy. This study indicates that legislation restricting the over-the-counter availability of the majority of analgesic components and resulting in the absence of analgesic mixtures—containing two analgesic substances and one potentially addictive substance—on the market, has effectively resulted in a substantially lower prevalence of analgesic nephropathy. Moreover, it shows that permissive legislation could be associated with very different sales data, depending on the marketing strategy of the pharmaceutical industry and the subsequent purchasing behaviour of the population. These findings indicate that, in order to eradicate analgesic nephropathy, there is a need to elaborate legislation that prohibits the availability of analgesic mixtures containing two analgesic components and at least one potentially addictive substance.