Könsstympning och intimkirurgi - En undersökning av den svenska rättsliga gränsdragningen
(2025) JURM02 20251Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- I Sverige har alla former av könsstympning varit förbjudna sedan 1982 då könsstympningslagen (1982:316) trädde i kraft. Lagen förbjuder enligt sin ordalydelse alla ingrepp i de kvinnliga yttre könsorganen som görs i syfte att stympa eller åstadkomma andra bestående förändringar av dem. Att förbudet är mycket brett utformat, och att det till sin språkliga utformning även omfattar estetiskt motiverade kirurgiska ingrepp – så kallad intimkirurgi – har upp-märksammats flera gånger genom åren. Problemet blev återigen aktuellt år 2021, när lagen om estetisk kirurgi (2021:363) trädde i kraft i syfte att stärka patientsäkerheten kring plastikkirurgiska ingrepp. Lagen reglerar bland annat sådana intimkirurgiska ingrepp som enligt... (More)
- I Sverige har alla former av könsstympning varit förbjudna sedan 1982 då könsstympningslagen (1982:316) trädde i kraft. Lagen förbjuder enligt sin ordalydelse alla ingrepp i de kvinnliga yttre könsorganen som görs i syfte att stympa eller åstadkomma andra bestående förändringar av dem. Att förbudet är mycket brett utformat, och att det till sin språkliga utformning även omfattar estetiskt motiverade kirurgiska ingrepp – så kallad intimkirurgi – har upp-märksammats flera gånger genom åren. Problemet blev återigen aktuellt år 2021, när lagen om estetisk kirurgi (2021:363) trädde i kraft i syfte att stärka patientsäkerheten kring plastikkirurgiska ingrepp. Lagen reglerar bland annat sådana intimkirurgiska ingrepp som enligt könsstympningslagens ordalydelse är förbjudna. I dagsläget finns således två lagar som reglerar intimkirurgiska ingrepp – könsstympningslagen som förbjuder dem helt och lagen om estetisk kirurgi som behandlar dem som tillåtna.
I uppsatsen undersöks hur tillämpningsområdena för könsstympningslagen och lagen om estetisk kirurgi förhåller sig till varandra avseende intimkirur-giska ingrepp. Resultatet av denna utredning visar att de två lagarnas tillämp-ningsområden till stor del överlappar. I förarbetena till lagen om estetisk ki-rurgi beskrivs flera faktorer som ska kunna användas för att särskilja intim-kirurgiska ingrepp från könsstympningsingrepp. Dessa faktorer utgörs av ingreppets art och förväntade resultat, huruvida ingreppet står i överensstäm-melse med medicinsk etik och vetenskap och beprövad erfarenhet samt orsa-kerna till kvinnans önskan att genomgå ingreppet. I uppsatsen klargörs dock att bedömningsfaktorerna i flera fall är otillräckliga för att kunna särskilja in-timkirurgiska ingrepp från könsstympningsingrepp, främst till följd av att in-greppen ofta är lika sett till utförande och resultat samt att de i viss utsträck-ning utförs av samma skäl. När ett kirurgiskt ingrepp omfattas av både lagen om estetisk kirurgi och könsstympningslagen är det således inte alltid möjligt att utifrån gällande rätt avgöra vilken lag som ska tillämpas.
Rättsläget problematiseras även ur ett postkolonialt feministiskt perspektiv. I denna diskussion uppmärksammas att det osäkra rättsläget medför en stor risk att rättstillämpningen blir godtycklig. När rättskällornas vägledning är otill-räcklig kommer bedömningar av huruvida ingrepp utgör intimkirurgi eller könsstympning att grundas på andra faktorer. Med hänsyn till att intimkirurgi och könsstympning har ursprung från olika delar av världen finns en risk att stereotypa uppfattningar om respektive ingrepp, och de kvinnor som genom-går dem, blir avgörande i enskilda bedömningar. Sådana godtyckliga bedöm-ningar av vilka ingrepp som är tillåtna respektive förbjudna får konsekvenser för kvinnors självbestämmanderätt i förhållande till sina kroppar. De innebär dessutom att kvinnor på godtyckliga grunder kategoriseras som antingen pati-enter eller potentiella brottsoffer. (Less) - Abstract
- Female genital mutilation (FGM) is prohibited in Sweden under the Act Pro-hibiting Female Genital Mutilation (1982:316). The law forbids all procedures performed on the female external genitalia with the aim to mutilate or perma-nently change them. The fact that the law, due to its wording, also prohibits surgical procedures which are performed for aesthetic reasons – known as female genital cosmetic surgery (FGCS) – has been highlighted several times. The issue was brought to attention once again when the Act on Aesthetic Sur-gical Procedures (2021:363) was passed in 2021 to improve patient safety in relation to aesthetic surgical procedures. The scope of the law covers FGCS, which, paradoxically, at the same time is prohibited under the... (More)
- Female genital mutilation (FGM) is prohibited in Sweden under the Act Pro-hibiting Female Genital Mutilation (1982:316). The law forbids all procedures performed on the female external genitalia with the aim to mutilate or perma-nently change them. The fact that the law, due to its wording, also prohibits surgical procedures which are performed for aesthetic reasons – known as female genital cosmetic surgery (FGCS) – has been highlighted several times. The issue was brought to attention once again when the Act on Aesthetic Sur-gical Procedures (2021:363) was passed in 2021 to improve patient safety in relation to aesthetic surgical procedures. The scope of the law covers FGCS, which, paradoxically, at the same time is prohibited under the Act Prohibiting Female Genital Mutilation. Consequently, FGCS is currently regulated by two different laws – one that forbids it and one that permits it.
This thesis examines how the Act Prohibiting Female Genital Mutilation (which bans FGCS), and the Act on Aesthetic Surgical Procedures (which permits FGCS), should be interpreted in relation to each other. The scopes of the laws are found to overlap significantly, although several factors to distin-guish FGCS from FGM are presented in the preparatory works to the Act on Aesthetic Surgical Procedures. The procedures are explained to differ regard-ing their nature and expected outcomes, in their alignment with medical ethics and science and proven experience, and in reasons to why they are performed. However, the thesis argues that these criteria are in many cases insufficient to differentiate FGCS from FGM. The procedures often share similarities in how they are performed, their results, and, in some cases, the reasons to why they are performed. Therefore, when a surgical procedure falls within the scopes of both the Act Prohibiting Female Genital Mutilation and the Act on Aesthetic Surgical Procedures, it is in certain instances not possible to deter-mine which law should be applied.
Furthermore, the thesis examines the legal ambiguity through a perspective of postcolonial feminist theory. The uncertainty regarding how the laws should be interpreted is found to entail a significant risk for arbitrary interpretation. In the absence of clear criteria to differentiate FGCS from FGM, legal assess-ments will be based on other factors. Considering that FGCS and FGM origi-nate from different cultures, there is a risk that assessments are based on ste-reotypical understandings of the procedures and women who undergo them. The thesis critiques how such arbitrary assessments may determine which women are allowed to exercise self-determination in relation to their bodies, and how they position women as either patients or potential victims of crime. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9188977
- author
- Fridh, Hilda LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Female Genital Mutilation and Female Genital Cosmetic Surgery - A Study of the Swedish Legal Demarcation
- course
- JURM02 20251
- year
- 2025
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- straffrätt, medicinsk rätt, könsstympning, intimkirurgi, postkolonial feministisk teori, likabehandling, lag med förbud mot könsstympning av kvinnor, lag om estetiska kirurgiska ingrepp och estetiska injektionsbehandlingar, estetiska kirurgiska ingrepp
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9188977
- date added to LUP
- 2025-06-04 13:41:51
- date last changed
- 2025-06-04 13:41:51
@misc{9188977,
abstract = {{Female genital mutilation (FGM) is prohibited in Sweden under the Act Pro-hibiting Female Genital Mutilation (1982:316). The law forbids all procedures performed on the female external genitalia with the aim to mutilate or perma-nently change them. The fact that the law, due to its wording, also prohibits surgical procedures which are performed for aesthetic reasons – known as female genital cosmetic surgery (FGCS) – has been highlighted several times. The issue was brought to attention once again when the Act on Aesthetic Sur-gical Procedures (2021:363) was passed in 2021 to improve patient safety in relation to aesthetic surgical procedures. The scope of the law covers FGCS, which, paradoxically, at the same time is prohibited under the Act Prohibiting Female Genital Mutilation. Consequently, FGCS is currently regulated by two different laws – one that forbids it and one that permits it.
This thesis examines how the Act Prohibiting Female Genital Mutilation (which bans FGCS), and the Act on Aesthetic Surgical Procedures (which permits FGCS), should be interpreted in relation to each other. The scopes of the laws are found to overlap significantly, although several factors to distin-guish FGCS from FGM are presented in the preparatory works to the Act on Aesthetic Surgical Procedures. The procedures are explained to differ regard-ing their nature and expected outcomes, in their alignment with medical ethics and science and proven experience, and in reasons to why they are performed. However, the thesis argues that these criteria are in many cases insufficient to differentiate FGCS from FGM. The procedures often share similarities in how they are performed, their results, and, in some cases, the reasons to why they are performed. Therefore, when a surgical procedure falls within the scopes of both the Act Prohibiting Female Genital Mutilation and the Act on Aesthetic Surgical Procedures, it is in certain instances not possible to deter-mine which law should be applied.
Furthermore, the thesis examines the legal ambiguity through a perspective of postcolonial feminist theory. The uncertainty regarding how the laws should be interpreted is found to entail a significant risk for arbitrary interpretation. In the absence of clear criteria to differentiate FGCS from FGM, legal assess-ments will be based on other factors. Considering that FGCS and FGM origi-nate from different cultures, there is a risk that assessments are based on ste-reotypical understandings of the procedures and women who undergo them. The thesis critiques how such arbitrary assessments may determine which women are allowed to exercise self-determination in relation to their bodies, and how they position women as either patients or potential victims of crime.}},
author = {{Fridh, Hilda}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Könsstympning och intimkirurgi - En undersökning av den svenska rättsliga gränsdragningen}},
year = {{2025}},
}