Norway has been dominated by other regional powers at an unusually high rate.

What would the normal rate be?

In any case, if Cnut the Great means England ruled over Norway, then that mean the Kalmar Union was Norway ruling over Denmark and Sweden, since Margaret I was queen over Norway before the other two. Magnus Eriksson was crowned king of Norway several months before he became king of Sweden in 1319, so that'd make it Norwegian rule over Sweden in that case. You're not really making any sense that way.

What you're missing here is two things: 1) during the late Middle Ages, the Scandinavian countries were elective monarchies. Kings were elected by the þing assembly of a bunch of nobles/magnates, and they could be deposed by the same. There was no feudalism, they were not absolute monarchs, ruling by the grace of god from which all power stemmed. The nobles didn't get their power from the king but vice-versa, particularly in Denmark and Sweden, while the Norwegian nobility had been weakened relative the king in the Civil War Era. (1130-1240) and by the establishment of hereditary monarchy. However that hereditary monarchy was defunct by the end of the 1300s; and it took on an elective-monarchy character. And this is not to say the kings did not try to increase their power at the expense of the nobility, nor that they didn't try to institute hereditary rule. They did- with little success - during the entire Middle Ages.

Second, what you're talking about here are mainly personal unions. Two countries having the same monarch is a personal union, but it deoesn't imply one of the countries is ruling over the other. Today the UK does not rule over Australia or Jamaica or Canada or the dozen other places where Queen Elizabeth is monarch. Sweden was never considered under Polish rule (or vice-versa) under king Sigismund/Zygmunt III.

The Kalmar Union was a personal union, it was not Danish rule, or at least not Danish rule against the will of the nobles. In reality all three countries were pretty heavily dominated by the Hanseatic Leauge in a lot of matters in this period, and it was conflicts of interest in the relation to the Hansa and perceptions that Danes and Germans were being given too many vogt positions at the expense of local nobles, which lead to the Engelbrekt rebellion and Sweden's (and to a far lesser extent Norway's) vacillating between Erik of Pomerania and Karl Knutsson Bonde and others as king in the 1400s. Christian I tried to take control over Sweden by force after Knutsson's death in 1471, but was defeated, the next union king John/Hans successfully split the Swedish nobles' ranks and managed to get elected king 1497-1501, when he was deposed and Sweden was out again until 1520-23. After Christian II's successfully invaded of Sweden in 1520 to force Sweden into submission to his rule, and unlike Christian I it was successful. In an attempt to consolidate his power he executed a bunch of Sture-supporters at the Stockholm Bloodbath. Which however had the effect of galvanizing Swedish opinion against him, and not helping him at home either. So Vasa's rebellion started more or less immediately and the Kalmar Union was decidedly dead by his coronation in 1523. Vasa and his sons after him centralized power, cowed the nobility and established hereditary rule. Vasa in 1523 also doesn't think it's obvious Scania or Norway should remain with Denmark either and launches military campaigns which fail to take Scania but do conquer southern Norway in the spring of 1523; the Danes burn Olso and the Swedish forces are forced to retreat from Viken.

Failing to stop Vasa, Christian II is kicked out by the Danes in 1523, and it is first now, with his successor Frederick (I) that Denmark-Norway now gets hereditary rule. Frederick gathers power as well. The Hanseatic Leauge wanes in power, he abolishes the Norwegian Riksråd (Council of the Realm) in 1536. This removes the political status of Norwegian nobles. At the same time the rights of Danish nobles are extended to Norway, and with appointments and land grants to Danish nobles who emigrate to Norway and thereby become a new Norwegians aristocracy. So by the time Frederick III institutes absolute monarchy in Denmark-Norway in 1660, the aristocracy is largely Danish and the 'union' has become pure Danish rule by then, if not earlier. Norway still remains its own kingdom throughout, though. Norway was never annexed by Denmark, which would've meant Norway's integration into the Kingdom of Denmark.

When Denmark was forced to cede Norway to Sweden in 1814, the Norwegians didn't take so kindly as being traded like cattle; declaring their independence and ratifying the constitution of 1814 on what's now their national holiday (may 17), but but were defeated after the short Swedish–Norwegian War of that year. However, the union between Sweden and Norway was again largely a personal union. Norway kept their laws, assembly and constitution but did not have complete control over military and foreign affairs. So it's hard to say it was 'ruled by Sweden' in this period. Ultimately they declare independence in 1905 and the Swedish government decides to accede.

So in summary we're only really talking about short of 300 years of Danish rule over Norway as the period of definite foreign rule. And when not self-ruled, Norway remained a single political unit (kingdom) throughout the past 1,000 years. That's more than you can say for a lot of north Europe (Poland, Germany, Russia, the Low Countries etc have all been split up in periods here).