Fine, a union, though I agree with Former Reformer's Orthodox and Catholic view of it. Anyway, as James2 points out, of interest is it seems to settle what the Anglican view of the historic episcopate (their claim to apostolic succession) is. High churchmen including Anglo-Catholics usually believed it was essential to a true church; low churchmen believed it was optional. With the union, the Episcopal Church has moved Protestantwards. Like the Swedish Lutherans, it claims the episcopate but thinks it's optional. I know the new ELCA bishops and pastors now have the Episcopal claim. The point is the old non-episcopal ELCA pastors have been grandfathered in: Episcopal priests by fiat, without Episcopal ordination.
Had an interesting conversation with a history professor about this. He says the classical Anglicans and Carolines/Laudians were less Catholic about this than Anglo-Catholics thought. The old high churchmen really believed there is no mandated form of church government in the New Testament but if you have to choose a best one, it's bishops. Perfect political compromise: the king liked having bishops but needed Protestant Europe's support, so Anglicans diplomatically recognized its ministers.
Also, Anglican and Lutheran, including non-episcopal German and Danish Lutherans, and episcopal but no claim to succession Norwegian ones, have always been interchangeable, even before the 1930s intercommunion with the Church of Sweden and the recent Porvoo one with the others. That's why the colonial Swedes became Episcopalians after American independence and there are next to no Lutheran churches in Britain.