@misc{9226616,
  abstract     = {{On 1 December 2025, new criminal provisions came into force in Swedish law criminalizing virginity tests, virginity certificates, and virginity procedures. The reform has been justified as part of the efforts against honour-related violence and oppression that aim to strengthen the protection of women in honour-based contexts. At the same time, the criminalization raises fundamental questions about the function and limits of criminal law in regulating honour norms, particularly from a feminist perspective focusing on flexibility. 

This thesis analyses how these acts have been constructed as a criminal law problem in the legislative process and examines whether the criminalization is compatible with central criminalization principles. The analysis is conducted in two steps, where the WPR analysis constitutes the starting point for the subsequent review. First, Bacchi and Goodwin’s WPR method is applied to Government Bill 2024/25:189 to highlight the problem representations and alternative problematizations that are given limited space. In the light of this, the reform is then assessed against the principles of ultima ratio, effectiveness, protective interest, and countervailing interest. 

The WPR analysis shows partly that the reform is based on a problem representation about violations of women’s autonomy and a gap in previous legislation. At the same time, the analysis highlights that this production rests on underlying assumptions about the state’s responsibility to protect women’s bodily integrity and about criminal law as an effective regulatory tool for the civil order. Thereby, alternative perspectives are marginalized, such as the view on women as agents with possible underlying reasons for requesting these acts, as well as the importance of educational initiatives. The problem appears shaped by court cases, international commitments, gender equality goals, and an expansive criminal policy, while at the same time the problem representation is not given but remains possible to change. 

Against this background, the review of principles shows that the criminalization does not meet established requirements. It has not been demonstrated that criminal law has been used as a last resort in accordance with the principle of ultima ratio, particularly considering alternative measures. Nor has it been established that the provisions provide such preventive efficiency benefits that a specific criminalization can be justified in relation to existing law. Furthermore, it is doubtful whether the stated protective interest is the most immediate in all situations covered by the regulation. At the same time, there exists a clear conflict with a countervailing interest: in extreme cases, the woman’s life in honour-related contexts where certain actions may be a way to avoid more serious violence. The legitimacy of the criminalization thus appears to be insufficiently motivated in the light of the requirements for when criminal law should be used.}},
  author       = {{Karlsson, Melina}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Straffrätten mot oskuldsnormen – En WPR- studie och utvärdering beträffande kriminaliseringen av oskuldskontroller, oskuldsintyg och oskuldsingrepp utifrån principerna om ultima ratio, effektivitet och skyddsintresse}},
  year         = {{2026}},
}