Avtal om abort - en kvinnas privilegium?
(2018) LAGF03 20181Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Avtalsfrihet och rätt till domstolsprövning inskränks i svensk rätt genom principen om pactum turpe. Det innebär att avtal som strider mot lag eller goda seder inte anses förtjäna rättsordningens skydd. Avtalsrättsliga ogiltighetsregler syftar många gånger till att skydda den svagare parten i avtalsrelationen, medan pactum turpe civilprocessrättsligt syftar till att skydda samhällets moraluppfattning. I rättsfallet RH 2004:41 behandlas frågan om huruvida ett avtal om abort kan upptas till rättslig prövning eller ej. Hovrätten kom fram till att avtalet strider mot moraluppfattningar i svensk rätt och avvisade talan. Problematiken som framställs i rättsfallet avseende förhållandet mellan avtalsfrihet, behovet att skydda köpslående med... (More)
- Avtalsfrihet och rätt till domstolsprövning inskränks i svensk rätt genom principen om pactum turpe. Det innebär att avtal som strider mot lag eller goda seder inte anses förtjäna rättsordningens skydd. Avtalsrättsliga ogiltighetsregler syftar många gånger till att skydda den svagare parten i avtalsrelationen, medan pactum turpe civilprocessrättsligt syftar till att skydda samhällets moraluppfattning. I rättsfallet RH 2004:41 behandlas frågan om huruvida ett avtal om abort kan upptas till rättslig prövning eller ej. Hovrätten kom fram till att avtalet strider mot moraluppfattningar i svensk rätt och avvisade talan. Problematiken som framställs i rättsfallet avseende förhållandet mellan avtalsfrihet, behovet att skydda köpslående med kroppsdelar och kvinnans fria val att genomgå abort har diskuterats sparsamt inom doktrin. Liksom tingsrätten och hovrätten företräds olika åsikter och slutsatser i litteraturen. Detta visar ännu tydligare hur önskvärt ett prövningstillstånd av Högsta domstolen i det aktuella fallet hade varit. Begreppet ”goda seder” är tätt sammanflätat med den allmänna moraluppfattningen, och det är inte uttryckligen reglerat hur begreppet ska tolkas rättsligt. Frågan blir därför bedömd utifrån praxis, som i sin tur bygger på omständigheter i de enskilda fallen. Bedömningen kan således sägas baseras på ett slags sunt förnuft, vilket innebär att de som representerar rätten således ger uttryck för sina personliga värderingar och moraluppfattningar. Detta kan sättas i kontrast med kravet på domarens objektivitet som anses gälla. De personliga värderingar som rättens representanter företräder sammanfaller inte nödvändigtvis med allmänhetens, vilket väcker frågan om vem som har rätt att avgöra vad som är moraliskt rätt och fel. Under uppsatsens gång uppstod även frågan varför kvinnan, i ljuset av den fria aborten, inte tillerkänns rätten till domstolsprövning av ett beslut hon tagit helt själv - nämligen beslutet att ingå ett avtal. (Less)
- Abstract
- The freedom of contract and the right to judicial review are restricted by Swedish law through pactum turpe. This means that agreements contrary to law or good practice are not considered to merit legal protection. The purpose of contractual invalidity aims to protect the weaker party in the contractual relationship, while the principle of pactum turpe aims to protect the moral perception of the society. The case of RH 2004: 41 raises the question of whether an agreement regarding abortion should be admissible in court. The Court of Appeal concluded that the agreement was contrary to moral perceptions in Swedish law, and rejected the case. The distinguished problem in the case regarding the relationship between contractual freedom, the... (More)
- The freedom of contract and the right to judicial review are restricted by Swedish law through pactum turpe. This means that agreements contrary to law or good practice are not considered to merit legal protection. The purpose of contractual invalidity aims to protect the weaker party in the contractual relationship, while the principle of pactum turpe aims to protect the moral perception of the society. The case of RH 2004: 41 raises the question of whether an agreement regarding abortion should be admissible in court. The Court of Appeal concluded that the agreement was contrary to moral perceptions in Swedish law, and rejected the case. The distinguished problem in the case regarding the relationship between contractual freedom, the need to protect women from the commercialization of their bodies, and a woman’s free choice to undergo an abortion has been discussed by a few limited number of prominent experts on Swedish law. Much like the District Court and the Court of Appeal, these experts have different opinions on the matter, and are not in agreement on which conclusions should be drawn. The fact that the Supreme Court did not grant leave to appeal for judicial review is thus regrettable. The concept of good practice is directly connected to a general moral perception. The process of establishing what is or what is not good practice is not defined under Swedish statuary law. The question of is therefore assessed on the basis of case law. Because of the specific character of the cases, the court is required to make an assessment based on ‘common sense’. This means that the individuals representing the court expresses personal values and moral perceptions in the interpretation of the law. This is contrary to the requirement of the courts’ objectivity. The representatives of the court’s personal values is not necessarily in line with values of the general public, which raises the question of who should be entitled to decide what is morally wrong and contrary good practice. During the thesis arose the question of why the woman in the light of her free abortion is not granted the right of a judicial review regarding a decision she has taken herself- namely the decision to enter into an agreement. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8941112
- author
- Cangemark, Hilda LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20181
- year
- 2018
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Allmän rättslära, avtalsrätt, civilrätt, processrätt, förmögenhetsrätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8941112
- date added to LUP
- 2018-07-07 11:28:28
- date last changed
- 2018-07-07 11:28:28
@misc{8941112,
abstract = {{The freedom of contract and the right to judicial review are restricted by Swedish law through pactum turpe. This means that agreements contrary to law or good practice are not considered to merit legal protection. The purpose of contractual invalidity aims to protect the weaker party in the contractual relationship, while the principle of pactum turpe aims to protect the moral perception of the society. The case of RH 2004: 41 raises the question of whether an agreement regarding abortion should be admissible in court. The Court of Appeal concluded that the agreement was contrary to moral perceptions in Swedish law, and rejected the case. The distinguished problem in the case regarding the relationship between contractual freedom, the need to protect women from the commercialization of their bodies, and a woman’s free choice to undergo an abortion has been discussed by a few limited number of prominent experts on Swedish law. Much like the District Court and the Court of Appeal, these experts have different opinions on the matter, and are not in agreement on which conclusions should be drawn. The fact that the Supreme Court did not grant leave to appeal for judicial review is thus regrettable. The concept of good practice is directly connected to a general moral perception. The process of establishing what is or what is not good practice is not defined under Swedish statuary law. The question of is therefore assessed on the basis of case law. Because of the specific character of the cases, the court is required to make an assessment based on ‘common sense’. This means that the individuals representing the court expresses personal values and moral perceptions in the interpretation of the law. This is contrary to the requirement of the courts’ objectivity. The representatives of the court’s personal values is not necessarily in line with values of the general public, which raises the question of who should be entitled to decide what is morally wrong and contrary good practice. During the thesis arose the question of why the woman in the light of her free abortion is not granted the right of a judicial review regarding a decision she has taken herself- namely the decision to enter into an agreement.}},
author = {{Cangemark, Hilda}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Avtal om abort - en kvinnas privilegium?}},
year = {{2018}},
}