Rätten till abort - En komparativ analys av hur Sverige och USA fick fri abort, samt av Europadomstolens och USA:s Supreme Courts bedömning av rätten till abort i relation till rätten till privatliv
(2021) LAGF03 20211Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Denna uppsats behandlar den historiska utvecklingen som ledde fram till fri abort i Sverige och USA samt jämför två rättsfall från Europadomstolen och USA:s Supreme Court, A, B and C v. Ireland och Roe v. Wade, för att utöver den historiska kontexten ge en förståelse för den juridiska argumentationen. Rättsfallen fokuserar på rätten till abort i relation till rätten till privatliv och analysen ämnar visa huruvida domstolarnas bedömningar skiljer sig åt.
Den primära skillnaden i den historiska utvecklingen mellan Sverige och USA under andra halvan av 1900-talet kan sägas vara att rätten till fri abort i länderna grundade sig på olika anledningar. I Sverige var det primärt att det fanns ett behov av en modernare lagstiftning på området... (More) - Denna uppsats behandlar den historiska utvecklingen som ledde fram till fri abort i Sverige och USA samt jämför två rättsfall från Europadomstolen och USA:s Supreme Court, A, B and C v. Ireland och Roe v. Wade, för att utöver den historiska kontexten ge en förståelse för den juridiska argumentationen. Rättsfallen fokuserar på rätten till abort i relation till rätten till privatliv och analysen ämnar visa huruvida domstolarnas bedömningar skiljer sig åt.
Den primära skillnaden i den historiska utvecklingen mellan Sverige och USA under andra halvan av 1900-talet kan sägas vara att rätten till fri abort i länderna grundade sig på olika anledningar. I Sverige var det primärt att det fanns ett behov av en modernare lagstiftning på området efter att problematiken synliggjorts i media. I USA var det snarare en kamp mot existerande maktstrukturer, ett sätt att dels skydda kvinnors kroppar mot dåligt genomförda aborter, dels skydda kvinnor mot maktutövning från män och läkare, som såg abortlagstiftningen som ett sätt att reglera kvinnors rättigheter.
Vad gäller domstolarnas bedömningar skiljer de sig också åt. Båda domstolarna medger att det finns en rätt till abort inom tillämpningsområdet för rätten till privatliv, men Europadomstolen menade att konventionsstaternas diskretionära prövningsrätt i frågan var mycket stor och till följd därav förelåg inget krav på legaliserad abort i landet för att rätten skulle vara tillgodosedd. USA:s Supreme Court å andra sidan menade att en intresseavvägning bör ske vid bedömningen, men att det genom hela graviditeten ska vara möjligt att genomföra abort. De ställde upp en trestegsmodell som tog hänsyn till de motstående intressena och rättigheterna som låg för handen, samtidigt som den bevarade skyddet för kvinnans rätt till privatliv. Roe v. Wade innebar till skillnad från A, B and C v. Ireland att legaliserad abort var minimikravet för att rätten till privatliv skulle vara tillgodosedd.
Den här uppsatsen menar att Europadomstolens bedömning har sina brister, eftersom jämförbarhet föreligger mellan konventionens medlemsstater och USA. Argumenten för att den diskretionära prövningsrätten inom ramen för EKMR ska vara vidsträckt, när det finns konsensus i frågan, saknar udd när man i USA, som är en federal stat (vilket jag vill likna Europakonventionen vid), redan på 70-talet, ansåg att abort skulle legaliseras i samtliga stater. (Less) - Abstract
- This essay deals with the historical development which prompted free abortion in Sweden and the United States of America, and compares two cases from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the United State’s Supreme Court, to give an understanding of the legal reasoning behind them. The cases focus on the right to abortion in relation to the right to privacy, the analysis therefore aims to show how the two court’s assesments differ.
One could argue that the primary difference between the historical development in Sweden and the United States during the second half of the 20th century was that the right to free abortion was based on different reasons. In Sweden it was primarily based on a need for more modern legislation after the... (More) - This essay deals with the historical development which prompted free abortion in Sweden and the United States of America, and compares two cases from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the United State’s Supreme Court, to give an understanding of the legal reasoning behind them. The cases focus on the right to abortion in relation to the right to privacy, the analysis therefore aims to show how the two court’s assesments differ.
One could argue that the primary difference between the historical development in Sweden and the United States during the second half of the 20th century was that the right to free abortion was based on different reasons. In Sweden it was primarily based on a need for more modern legislation after the problems with existing laws were put in the forefront by the media. In the United States it was more of a struggle against existing power structures, a way of protecting women from men and doctor’s exercise of power and less than satisfactory abortions.
The court’s assessments also differ. Both courts acknowledge the right to abortion as being within the scope of application of the right to privacy, but the ECHR held that a wide margin of appreciation excisted. Therefore the right did not include an obligation to legalize abortion within the state, the right could be satisfied by other means, e.g. by it being legal to travel to other states for abortion. The Supreme Court held that the interests at hand must be weighed against each other throughout the pregnancy, however there was still a lawful path to abortion throughout the whole pregnancy through their three step-model. This model acknowledged the different interests, while still preserving the protection for the mothers right to privacy. Roe v. Wade meant that, in contrast to A, B and C v. Ireland, abortion being legal was the minimum requirement to fulfil the obligation to protect the mother’s privacy.
This essay holds that the ECHR’s judgement has its flaws, as a consequence of comparability between the convention’s contracting nations and the United States. The argument for the existence of a wide margin of appreciation, when there according to the ECHR exists a consensus between the states, lacks effect when the United States, which is a federal state (and in my opinion the convention could be seen as creating one as well), in the 1970s deemed free abortion a right in all states. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9045864
- author
- Pershaf, Nicolas LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20211
- year
- 2021
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Komparativ rätt, Abort, Rätten till abort, Rätten till privatliv, A, B and C v. Ireland, Roe v. Wade, Sverige, USA, Europadomstolen, Supreme Court
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9045864
- date added to LUP
- 2021-06-29 16:38:09
- date last changed
- 2021-06-29 16:38:09
@misc{9045864,
abstract = {{This essay deals with the historical development which prompted free abortion in Sweden and the United States of America, and compares two cases from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the United State’s Supreme Court, to give an understanding of the legal reasoning behind them. The cases focus on the right to abortion in relation to the right to privacy, the analysis therefore aims to show how the two court’s assesments differ.
One could argue that the primary difference between the historical development in Sweden and the United States during the second half of the 20th century was that the right to free abortion was based on different reasons. In Sweden it was primarily based on a need for more modern legislation after the problems with existing laws were put in the forefront by the media. In the United States it was more of a struggle against existing power structures, a way of protecting women from men and doctor’s exercise of power and less than satisfactory abortions.
The court’s assessments also differ. Both courts acknowledge the right to abortion as being within the scope of application of the right to privacy, but the ECHR held that a wide margin of appreciation excisted. Therefore the right did not include an obligation to legalize abortion within the state, the right could be satisfied by other means, e.g. by it being legal to travel to other states for abortion. The Supreme Court held that the interests at hand must be weighed against each other throughout the pregnancy, however there was still a lawful path to abortion throughout the whole pregnancy through their three step-model. This model acknowledged the different interests, while still preserving the protection for the mothers right to privacy. Roe v. Wade meant that, in contrast to A, B and C v. Ireland, abortion being legal was the minimum requirement to fulfil the obligation to protect the mother’s privacy.
This essay holds that the ECHR’s judgement has its flaws, as a consequence of comparability between the convention’s contracting nations and the United States. The argument for the existence of a wide margin of appreciation, when there according to the ECHR exists a consensus between the states, lacks effect when the United States, which is a federal state (and in my opinion the convention could be seen as creating one as well), in the 1970s deemed free abortion a right in all states.}},
author = {{Pershaf, Nicolas}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Rätten till abort - En komparativ analys av hur Sverige och USA fick fri abort, samt av Europadomstolens och USA:s Supreme Courts bedömning av rätten till abort i relation till rätten till privatliv}},
year = {{2021}},
}