Language in sexual offense judgments in Swedish courts makes victims responsible

Professional and lay judges are not supposed to be influenced by personal values or political opinions. Despite this, the language of judgments reflects stereotypical ideas about gender and sexuality. This language means that women who have experienced sexual violence are often blamed for the assault. This is shown in a new thesis in Scandinavian languages from Uppsala University.

Sexual offense cases often come down to one person’s word against another’s. According to the Swedish Supreme Court, one of the main tasks in such cases is to assess the credibility of the parties and the reliability of their accounts, especially the victim’s account. The assessment includes evaluating the level of detail in the account, and supplementary testimony about the victim’s emotional reactions can increase credibility.

In addition, the assessment must be objective and factual, but researcher Sofia Orrbén shows in her thesis that the language used by the courts testifies to a belief in myths about rape in Swedish district courts.

“Rape myths are preconceived notions of assault based on stereotypes about gender and sexuality and about victims and perpetrators. Some examples of common rape myths are that women want to have sex even if they say no, that men don’t understand when women say no, or that women lie about being assaulted,” says Orrbén, doctor of Scandinavian languages at Uppsala University.

She has analyzed 86 randomly selected judgments from Swedish district courts during the five-year period 2016–2021, i.e. both before and after the introduction of the Consent Act. All the victims were female and all the suspects were male. By examining how pronouns and words for specific body parts, actions and feelings are used, she shows what conceptions and ideas about victims, perpetrators and sexual violence exist in Swedish courts.

“Judgments are interesting to study precisely because they are supposed to reflect the objectivity of the courts, but when we use language we inevitably express some kind of idea or conception of the world,” Orrbén says.

As she describes it, myths about rape are primarily expressed in the court’s reasoning, i.e. in the part of the judgment where the court presents its assessment of the evidence in the case. Here, the parties’ arguments are assessed as valid or invalid.

“In the case of a suspected rape, a woman’s argument that she was unwilling can be declared invalid for various reasons—for example, if she didn’t call for help, didn’t put up enough resistance, was scantily clad or too drunk. This is regardless of whether the court acquits or convicts the suspect of the offense.

“Women who have experienced sexual violence are always questioned in a way that places the responsibility on them to prevent or stop an assault, instead of on the suspects. Women have to resist, explicitly say no, and in the process be physically injured so that involuntary actions are visible on their bodies as evidence,” says Orrbén.

In her research, she shows that the view of the victims of sexual offenses as responsible for assaults puts the blame on women who have experienced sexual violence. Therefore, in order to avoid blaming women, she suggests how language can be used to challenge the view of victims as responsible for assault.

“I believe that neither the evaluation of evidence nor the language used can be freed from personal values, but I think it is possible to work actively with the language to position the court as objective and thereby convey a more modern view of victims and perpetrators of sexual violence,” says Orrbén.