Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Familjeåterförening för alla? - En undersökning av tredjelandsmedborgarens rätt att återförenas med sin partner av samma kön.

Tolf, Melika LU (2024) LAGF03 20242
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
For same-sex couples, to live together as a family is still far from a given possibility in many countries around the world, and the question of which relationships to include within the concept of family remains controversial in the EU. Another field that is continously debated both at the EU level and in Sweden is migration law, particularly the regulations concerning third-country nationals (TCNs). Since 2003, when the Family Reunification Directive was created, it has brought the question of the scope of the famliy and migration law to a head. The purpose of this thesis is to examine, both at the EU level and within Swedish national law, the right to family reunification for TCNs in same-sex relationships, and whether it differs from... (More)
For same-sex couples, to live together as a family is still far from a given possibility in many countries around the world, and the question of which relationships to include within the concept of family remains controversial in the EU. Another field that is continously debated both at the EU level and in Sweden is migration law, particularly the regulations concerning third-country nationals (TCNs). Since 2003, when the Family Reunification Directive was created, it has brought the question of the scope of the famliy and migration law to a head. The purpose of this thesis is to examine, both at the EU level and within Swedish national law, the right to family reunification for TCNs in same-sex relationships, and whether it differs from the right to family reunification for heterosexual couples.
Using a legal dogmatic method to establish the law within the EU, it can be concluded that the Family Reunification Directive distinguishes between married partners and unmarried partners, with married partners being granted a stronger right to family reunification. However, the directive does not define which marriages that should obtain this stronger right. Case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning same-sex relationships shows that the CJEU historically has been restrictive to equate same-sex relationships to different-sex relationships. Although the CJEU has strengthened the position of same-sex marriages through its rulings in recent years, there is still no case law that obligates member states to recognize same-sex marriages between two TCNs and thereby grant them the stronger right to famliy reunification. Regarding Swedish law, this thesis shows that Sweden is in the lead when it comes to family reunification for same-sex partners, as the optional rules of the directive concerning family reunification for partners have all been implemented. Sweden also treats same-sex marriages equally as different-sex marriages. Still, the Swedish regulation also differentiates between different types of relationships, where marriages and cohabiting couples are favoured over other types of partnerships. Unmarried partners who have not lived together are, during the application process, subject to an assessment of the seriousness of their relationship which, as this thesis gives prominence to, is influenced by the bureaucrat of the public angencies’ perceptions of what constitutes a serious relationship.
On the whole, it can be concluded that marriage is the key to secure the right to family reunification for TCNs. Those who, due to laws or cultures in their country of origin, have not been able to marry or live openly as a copule, a reality for many people in same-sex relationships, must, both un-der EU regulations and national Swedish regulations, rely on the less favo-rable rules for unmarried couples. The right to family reunification therefore risks, especially at the EU level, but also under Swedish law, to be unequal for TCNs in same-sex relationships compared to those in different-sex relationships. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Möjligheten för samkönade par att leva tillsammans som en familj är än idag långt ifrån självklar i många av världens länder, och frågan om vilka relationer som ska innefattas i familjebegreppet är fortfarande kontroversiell inom EU. Ett annat område som ständigt skapar debatt både på EU-nivå och svensk nivå är migrationsrätten, speciellt den reglering som rör tredjelandsmedborgare. Sedan år 2003 finns familjeåterföreningsdirektivet där frågan om familjebegreppets vidd och migrationsrätten möts och ställs på sin spets. Syftet med denna uppsats är att undersöka, både på EU-nivå och svensk nationell nivå, hur rätten till familjeåterförening för tredjelands-medborgare i samkönade relationer ser ut, och om den skiljer sig från rätten till... (More)
Möjligheten för samkönade par att leva tillsammans som en familj är än idag långt ifrån självklar i många av världens länder, och frågan om vilka relationer som ska innefattas i familjebegreppet är fortfarande kontroversiell inom EU. Ett annat område som ständigt skapar debatt både på EU-nivå och svensk nivå är migrationsrätten, speciellt den reglering som rör tredjelandsmedborgare. Sedan år 2003 finns familjeåterföreningsdirektivet där frågan om familjebegreppets vidd och migrationsrätten möts och ställs på sin spets. Syftet med denna uppsats är att undersöka, både på EU-nivå och svensk nationell nivå, hur rätten till familjeåterförening för tredjelands-medborgare i samkönade relationer ser ut, och om den skiljer sig från rätten till familjeåterförening för heterosexuella par.
Efter att med rättsdogmatisk metod fastställt gällande rätt inom EU går det att konstatera att familjeåterföreningsdirektivet gör skillnad på gifta partners och ogifta partners, där gifta partners ges en starkare rätt till familjeåterförening. Vilka äktenskap som ska erhålla denna starkare rätt definieras dock inte i direktivet. EU-domstolens praxis rörande samkönade relationer visar att domstolen historiskt sett varit restriktiv inställd till att likställa samkönade relationer med heterosexuella. Även om EU-domstolen med domar från senare år har stärkt det samkönade äktenskapets ställning, finns det ingen praxis som idag tvingar medlemsländerna att erkänna samkönade äktenskap mellan två tredjelandsmedborgare, och på det sättet ge dessa den starkare rätten till familjeåterförening. Gällande den svenska rätten visar undersökningen att Sverige ligger i framkant när det kommer till familjeåterförening för samkönade partners, i och med att direktivets fakultativa regler rörande familjeåterförening för ogifta par alla implementerats. Sverige likställer dessutom samkönade äktenskap med äktenskap där partnerna är av olika kön. Den svenska regleringen gör däremot även den skillnad på olika typer av relationer, där äktenskap och samboskap premieras framför andra typer av parrelationer. Ogifta partners som inte bott tillsammans genomgår i ansökningshandläggningen en seriositetsprövning vilken, som denna uppsats redogör för, är beroende och påverkad av den enskilda hand-läggarens föreställningar om vad som utgör en seriös relation.
Sammantaget kan det konstateras att äktenskapet är nyckeln till garanterad familjeåterförening för tredjelandsmedborgare. De som på grund av lagar eller kulturer i sitt hemland inte har kunnat ingå äktenskap eller leva öppet som par, något som idag fortfarande är en verklighet för många som lever i samkönade relationer, får både enligt svensk reglering och EU-reglering förlita sig på de mindre förmånliga reglerna för ogifta par. Rätten till familjeåterförening riskerar därför, framför allt på EU-nivå, men också enligt svensk rätt, att inte bli densamma för tredjelandsmedborgare i samkönade relationer som i heterosexuella relationer. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Tolf, Melika LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20242
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
EU-rätt, migrationsrätt
language
Swedish
id
9179735
date added to LUP
2025-03-20 14:23:55
date last changed
2025-03-20 14:23:55
@misc{9179735,
  abstract     = {{For same-sex couples, to live together as a family is still far from a given possibility in many countries around the world, and the question of which relationships to include within the concept of family remains controversial in the EU. Another field that is continously debated both at the EU level and in Sweden is migration law, particularly the regulations concerning third-country nationals (TCNs). Since 2003, when the Family Reunification Directive was created, it has brought the question of the scope of the famliy and migration law to a head. The purpose of this thesis is to examine, both at the EU level and within Swedish national law, the right to family reunification for TCNs in same-sex relationships, and whether it differs from the right to family reunification for heterosexual couples. 
Using a legal dogmatic method to establish the law within the EU, it can be concluded that the Family Reunification Directive distinguishes between married partners and unmarried partners, with married partners being granted a stronger right to family reunification. However, the directive does not define which marriages that should obtain this stronger right. Case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning same-sex relationships shows that the CJEU historically has been restrictive to equate same-sex relationships to different-sex relationships. Although the CJEU has strengthened the position of same-sex marriages through its rulings in recent years, there is still no case law that obligates member states to recognize same-sex marriages between two TCNs and thereby grant them the stronger right to famliy reunification. Regarding Swedish law, this thesis shows that Sweden is in the lead when it comes to family reunification for same-sex partners, as the optional rules of the directive concerning family reunification for partners have all been implemented. Sweden also treats same-sex marriages equally as different-sex marriages. Still, the Swedish regulation also differentiates between different types of relationships, where marriages and cohabiting couples are favoured over other types of partnerships. Unmarried partners who have not lived together are, during the application process, subject to an assessment of the seriousness of their relationship which, as this thesis gives prominence to, is influenced by the bureaucrat of the public angencies’ perceptions of what constitutes a serious relationship. 
On the whole, it can be concluded that marriage is the key to secure the right to family reunification for TCNs. Those who, due to laws or cultures in their country of origin, have not been able to marry or live openly as a copule, a reality for many people in same-sex relationships, must, both un-der EU regulations and national Swedish regulations, rely on the less favo-rable rules for unmarried couples. The right to family reunification therefore risks, especially at the EU level, but also under Swedish law, to be unequal for TCNs in same-sex relationships compared to those in different-sex relationships.}},
  author       = {{Tolf, Melika}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Familjeåterförening för alla? - En undersökning av tredjelandsmedborgarens rätt att återförenas med sin partner av samma kön.}},
  year         = {{2024}},
}