There's no particular reason for somewhere to vote in a particular way because it is remote, sparsely population and/or unusually close to the Arctic. Although, I guess, remoteness tends to reduce support for establishment conservative parties and (obviously) increase the chances of regional protest movements. It's usually better to look at the economic (though often the past economic structures will be a better guide) and social structures of a given area and work from there. Norrbotten in Sweden (for example) votes heavily for the Social Democrats because it is working class - iron mining was historically the dominant industry and it remains important in places - and (relatively) poor.
Though the liberal/conservative thing is best abandoned. Say left and right instead. Because saying that the northern parts of Sweden are the most liberal is a claim likely to spark much laughter.
