SHARE
COPY LINK
For members

POLITICS

How Sweden’s legal gender bill has split the government

The Swedish Parliament's Health and Welfare committee on Thursday voted to send the long-delayed legal gender bill to parliament, triggering a crisis in the ruling Moderate Party. What's happening?

How Sweden's legal gender bill has split the government
The Moderate Party MP Ellen Juntti has said she will defy the party line and vote against the bill. Photo: Fredrik Sandberg/TT

What is the new bill on changing legal gender? 

The proposed new law will lower the age at which someone can apply to change their official gender in Sweden’s population register from 18 to 16, with only a “simplified test of gender identity”. This will not require either a formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria or evidence that a person’s identification with the gender they want to change to dates back to early childhood.  

The new law will also mean that people no longer need permission from the Swedish Board of Health and Welfare before having genital surgery to make their body better match their gender identity.

However, such interventions will, as today, require a medical examination and can only be performed on people who have turned 18, with an age limit of 23 for those who want their testicles or ovaries removed. 

The bill was first proposed back in 2014, when the then Social Democrat-led government proposed allowing people to change their legal gender from the age of 12, with the bill sent out for consultation in the summer of 2022, just before the general election.

The new right-wing government then waited more than a year before deciding to push it forward.    

When is it going before parliament? 

The bill is due to go before parliament for a vote on April 17th. 

How is the government split on the issue? 

Badly, both between parties and within each party.

The Moderate Party and the Liberal Party are both in favour of the bill at the party level. The third government party, the Christian Democrats, is against it, though as is the government’s powerful support party, the Sweden Democrats. 

This is why it was the parliament’s Committee on Health and Welfare which submitted the bill to the Riksdag parliament rather than the government. By using this slightly unusual procedure, the Moderate and Liberal parties hoped to get the bill passed with the support of the opposition Social Democrat, Green, Centre, and Left parties, who are all in favour at a party level. 

The representatives for the Christian Democrats and Sweden Democrats on the committee voted against sending the bill to parliament, and on Friday they made a last-ditch attempt to block the vote. 

The two parties are hoping to win a parliamentary vote to return the law to the health and welfare committee, using a parliamentary procedure that requires a third of MPs present to vote in favour of it, or 117 MPs if all are present.

The two parties have 91 MPs, to stop the bill coming before parliament they will need to win the backing of 16 or more MPs.    

How are the parties split internally?

The Moderate Party is the most deeply divided, with two crisis meetings held on Friday April 5th, one for the parliamentary group of MPs and and another for the chairs of the party’s special interest organisations, including its women’s group and its LGBTQ group. 

According to Sweden’s TT newswire only 10 out of the party’s 68 MPs are actually in favour of the new law, with an article in the Expressen newspaper estimating that 80 percent were against it.

At least one, the Gothenburg MP Ellen Juntti, has said she will rebel against the party line and vote against the bill.   

“It’s chaos to put it mildly,” said one MP to TT. 

The Moderate MPs are particularly uncomfortable with the proposal to allow 16 year-olds to change their legal gender. 

On Thursday the party’s leader Ulf Kristersson said that he, himself, would be more comfortable keeping the age limit at 18, a statement that has if anything made opponents even more angry, seeing as he is seen as the main force in the party pushing for the bill to pass. 

“He’s been completely invisible desite being the one who forced all this to happen,” complained an anonymous Moderate Party MP. “He should come forward and stand up for it, not us, who are against it.”

Christian Sonesson, the hard-right Moderate mayor of Staffanstorp in southern Sweden called for the party’s leader, Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson, to shelve the law in the Expressen newspaper on Wednesday. 

“End your silence and stop the gender identity law,” he advised Kristersson. 

What about the opposition parties? 

The opposition Social Democrats are also split, with the chair of the party’s women’s organisation, Annika Strandhäll, opposed.

Strandhäll was the former health minister who developed the bill only to shelve it in 2018 after a series of investigative programmes on SVT criticised the treatment young people with gender dysphoria were receiving. She has highlighted the lack of any clear explanation for the sharp rise in the number of young people diagnosed with gender dysphoria over the past decade.  

Two other former Social Democrat ministers, former foreign minister Margot Wallström and former gender equality minister Margareta Winberg have also come out against the bill, signing a recent debate article in the Expressen newspaper calling for it to be stopped.

The article warned that allowing young people to change their legal gender could put them on “a fast track to going further with physical treatment”. 

Why are the Moderate and Liberal Parties pushing ahead with this? 

The Moderate Party’s leader, Ulf Kristersson, is highly engaged in LGBTQ issues and last autumn told the party’s MPs that he wanted them all to back him on the new law. He is also thought to have promised the Liberal Party, which is keen to make it easier for people who want to change gender, to push ahead with the bill.  

Member comments

Log in here to leave a comment.
Become a Member to leave a comment.
For members

POLITICS

‘Very little debate’ on consequences of Sweden’s crime and migration clampdown

Sweden’s political leaders are putting the population’s well-being at risk by moving the country in a more authoritarian direction, according to a recent report.

'Very little debate' on consequences of Sweden's crime and migration clampdown

The Liberties Rule of Law report shows Sweden backsliding across more areas than any other of the 19 European Union member states monitored, fuelling concerns that the country risks breaching its international human rights obligations, the report says.

“We’ve seen this regression in other countries for a number of years, such as Poland and Hungary, but now we see it also in countries like Sweden,” says John Stauffer, legal director of the human rights organisation Civil Rights Defenders, which co-authored the Swedish section of the report.

The report, compiled by independent civil liberties groups, examines six common challenges facing European Union member states.

Sweden is shown to be regressing in five of these areas: the justice system, media environment, checks and balances, enabling framework for civil society and systemic human rights issues.

The only area where Sweden has not regressed since 2022 is in its anti-corruption framework, where there has been no movement in either a positive or negative direction.

Source: Liberties Rule of Law report

As politicians scramble to combat an escalation in gang crime, laws are being rushed through with too little consideration for basic rights, according to Civil Rights Defenders.

Stauffer cites Sweden’s new stop-and-search zones as a case in point. From April 25th, police in Sweden can temporarily declare any area a “security zone” if there is deemed to be a risk of shootings or explosive attacks stemming from gang conflicts.

Once an area has received this designation, police will be able to search people and cars in the area without any concrete suspicion.

“This is definitely a piece of legislation where we see that it’s problematic from a human rights perspective,” says Stauffer, adding that it “will result in ethnic profiling and discrimination”.

Civil Rights Defenders sought to prevent the new law and will try to challenge it in the courts once it comes into force, Stauffer tells The Local in an interview for the Sweden in Focus Extra podcast

He also notes that victims of racial discrimination at the hands of the Swedish authorities had very little chance of getting a fair hearing as actions by the police or judiciary are “not even covered by the Discrimination Act”.

READ ALSO: ‘Civil rights groups in Sweden can fight this government’s repressive proposals’

Stauffer also expresses concerns that an ongoing migration clampdown risks splitting Sweden into a sort of A and B team, where “the government limits access to rights based on your legal basis for being in the country”.

The report says the government’s migration policies take a “divisive ‘us vs them’ approach, which threatens to increase rather than reduce existing social inequalities and exclude certain groups from becoming part of society”.

Proposals such as the introduction of a requirement for civil servants to report undocumented migrants to the authorities would increase societal mistrust and ultimately weaken the rule of law in Sweden, the report says.

The lack of opposition to the kind of surveillance measures that might previously have sparked an outcry is a major concern, says Stauffer.

Politicians’ consistent depiction of Sweden as a country in crisis “affects the public and creates support for these harsh measures”, says Stauffer. “And there is very little talk and debate about the negative consequences.”

Hear John Stauffer from Civil Rights Defender discuss the Liberties Rule of Law report in the The Local’s Sweden in Focus Extra podcast for Membership+ subscribers.

SHOW COMMENTS