Sexual and reproductive health and rights in international aid

Linnéa Wickman (S)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating a number of motions in the Committee on Foreign Affairs' report on sexual and reproductive health and rights in international aid. Fundamentally, this is a debate about what kind of Sweden we want to be in the world in the midst of a period of upheaval. We want to be a country that stands up when rights are pushed back, a country that defends girls' and women's right to their own bodies, and a country that understands and uses its experiences of investments in health and equality and sees that it is not a side issue in aid but absolutely crucial for development, freedom, and security.

Without power over one's own body, there is no real equality. Without access to contraceptives, maternity care, safe abortions, sexual education, and basic health interventions, people's life chances are limited from the very beginning. It is about being able to decide for oneself if and when one wants to have children. It is about being able to choose who one loves and having access to vaccines, medicines, and health and medical care.

Madam Speaker! It is important to start where the facts show us what can be achieved. It also gives hope in a dark time.

The world has shown over the past decades that progress is possible. Child mortality has decreased significantly. More women survive pregnancy and childbirth. More people have gained access to contraceptives.

The fight against female genital mutilation – a fight against one of the most brutal patriarchal oppressions that exist in the world – also shows that change in this area is possible. The risk for girls to be subjected to it has decreased by a third. Over half a million girls have escaped the abuse through long-term work that has been carried out, among other things, by the UN Population Fund, Unicef and civil society organizations and with significant support from Sweden.

Thanks to Sweden's efforts in several countries, for example Uganda, the training of and for midwives based on Swedish expertise has strengthened the midwives' role in care and improved maternity care, to the benefit of both children and mothers.

Another example is Sweden's over twenty-year commitment to the Global Fund – in the fight against HIV, malaria and tuberculosis – as well as to the vaccine alliance Gavi, which Sweden helped to form. The efforts have contributed to over 70 million lives being saved, and mortality from AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis has decreased dramatically.

All this shows something important: When the world invests in health and rights, it works.

Investments in global health are among the most effective investments that exist, and they provide manifold returns in both human and economic development.

Vaccinations, maternal and child health care, access to contraceptives and access to clean water, sanitation and hygiene – WASH – saves lives every day. It simultaneously creates the conditions for countries to be able to achieve a development that also allows them to invest in their own health systems.

Madam Speaker! That is precisely why the development we are now seeing in the world is so serious. The world does not stand still. It can move forward. But what we have also seen in recent years is how quickly it can move backward.

For the first time in 25 years, we are now seeing how child mortality is increasing in some parts of the world. At the same time, we see a sharp reduction in the funding of global health – something that essentially leads to a collapse of the health systems in the most vulnerable and exposed countries.

When major donors withdraw, life-saving interventions are destroyed. This has become clear through the Trump administration's shutdown of USAID, the USA's engagement in the anti-abortion alliance Geneva Consensus Declaration, together with countries such as Russia and Belarus, and the reintroduction of the Mexico City policy, the so-called global gag rule which prohibits support for organizations that provide information about abortion or that work to increase access to safe abortions.

Together, these decisions have enormous consequences in our world.

According to The Lancet, the reductions are estimated to lead to 14 million people's deaths by 2030, of which one third are children. These children will therefore not grow up unless the rest of the world manages to unite to step in when the USA steps back. This makes the importance and responsibility of other countries greater.

Madam Speaker! Here Sweden enters, because the question in today's debate is not only: What is happening globally? The question is also: What is happening in Swedish politics, and how do we act?

The Sweden Democrats and the government say time and again that SRHR is prioritized within Swedish aid. But despite that, and despite the catastrophic developments in the world, the proportion of Swedish aid that goes to SRHR has fallen in actual kronor.

In 2024, for example, Mozambique and Afghanistan were two of the countries that received the most Swedish support regarding SRHR in aid. In Mozambique, Sweden has supported programs that give girls and young women access to sexual education. It has contributed to care and interventions that improve access to safe abortions. In Afghanistan, Sweden has, among other things, financed interventions that give women access to reproductive healthcare and safe abortions through international organizations. But regarding both of these countries, the country strategies have been removed. This means in practice that the resources for two of the five countries that have had the most Swedish support specifically for SRHR have been completely cut.

These are not small adjustments in the margins, but it is a clear political change.

Sweden is simultaneously phasing out aid in several countries where the health systems are already very vulnerable and where the shutdown of USAID due to the Trump administration has already hit very hard.

This is happening despite the fact that we know that girls and women are hit hardest when access to care decreases. When funding disappears, clinics risk closing, HIV prevention risks being weakened, and access to contraceptives risks decreasing. At the same time, the work against child marriage and female genital mutilation is made more difficult.

Madam Speaker! At the same time, we see how much well-funded anti-gender movements are growing globally. These are organizations and states that actively oppose sex education, contraceptives, and abortion rights. In many places, particularly hbtqi persons have become targets. For that very reason, countries like Sweden and other like-minded countries need to step forward when other countries back down.

Madam Speaker! This week, the world's countries are gathering in the UN Commission on the Status of Women, and further ahead in our year, it is time for the UN Population Commission.

We who are part of the Nordic parliaments' SRHR network have urged our governments to stand up for equality and the rights of hbtqi persons and to oppose in the UN all attempts to dilute these rights in international agreements.

When the opposition is organized in a way that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago, the defense of rights must be organized, strong, and forward-looking.

And in the ongoing process for reforms of the UN system, Sweden and the Nordic countries must be clear: The mandate for UNFPA, the UN Population Fund, which has the most important SRHR mandate in the UN system, must not be weakened. There is a risk that it will be if Sweden and other member countries do not act and raise their voices in this process.

UNFPA's work is crucial for global access to contraceptives, maternal care, sexual education and protection against gender-based violence – for girls, for women, for hbtqi-persons and for youth.

Madam Speaker! Global developments are currently at a standstill. We know that investments in health work. We know that the work against female genital mutilation, child marriage, and maternal mortality yields results. But we also know that progress cannot be taken for granted, and we naturally want improvements to be able to occur even faster.

If the funding continues to decrease, as it has during recent years, the progress we have seen risks stalling, even though we today have more knowledge than ever about which interventions actually work and can prevent infectious diseases from spreading and prevent human suffering.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats believe that the development needs to be reversed. The downward trend for SRHR assistance must be broken.

Sweden shall be a strong voice for global health, strengthen research and increase core funding to organizations that work with global health and the rights of girls and women. We also need to stand by in the countries where the needs are greatest – not leave them just when the situation has become even more difficult.

This is important not only because it is morally right but also because global health security makes us all safer.

We Social Democrats, of course, stand behind all our reservations in this report, but for the sake of time, I move for approval of only reservation 1.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the committee's proposal in report 2025/26:UU8, which we are debating here today.

Madam Speaker! One of the government's priority areas in the reform agenda for Swedish aid is initiatives for increased equality and support for SRHR, sexual and reproductive health and rights, for girls and women.

Sweden's support is channeled through UD and Sida. In 2025, the government decided to allocate 4.3 billion kronor to a five-year strategy for the period 2025–2029 for global health and initiatives on SRHR.

The strategy aims to strengthen the health and rights of girls and women. The support is directed towards multilateral, regional and local partners and shall contribute to long-term improvements through interventions that increase access to care, strengthen rights and counter discrimination.

Through Sida, Sweden supports the work to strengthen SRHR, including by reducing maternal mortality and unplanned pregnancies but also through education and interventions so that countries themselves can educate and strengthen the support for girls and women.

I am very pleased that WASH, which stands for water, sanitation and hygiene, is highlighted in the report, which was mentioned from the rostrum. Without that part, it is very difficult to work to ensure that health and maternity care functions.

I myself gained insight into an example of this during a study visit with Unicef in Uganda recently. We visited small villages where healthcare helped many, often very young mothers and women in their pregnancy, but also with education to be able to work with a better understanding and support for SRHR for girls and women. Another example is Wateraid. It is the organization that works with exactly WASH worldwide, for example in Rwanda, which I also have had the opportunity to visit during the mandate period to see how Swedish aid actually does good.

Unicef and Wateraid are two organizations that work on-site together with local and regional actors. They have methods and developed knowledge and experience. Swedish aid does concrete good there.

Madam Speaker! Right now, the UN's 70th Women's Conference is taking place in New York, where Sweden, as in previous years, is participating with both a government delegation and a parliamentary delegation. I participated in the parliamentary delegation in 2023, and I can testify that Sweden's commitment is strong. Together with our Nordic colleagues, we stand out and are driving the agenda. Sweden has a strong international reputation when it comes to equality and rights for girls and women.

On March 8 this year, on International Women's Day, the Swedish government decided to allocate just over 71 million kronor for activities that benefit girls and women in Ukraine. The funds are distributed between the UN Population Fund, UNFPA, and the UN organization for gender equality and women's empowerment, UN Women, with a focus on humanitarian activities.

We know that it is in war and humanitarian crises that the vulnerability of women and girls increases the most, and Ukraine is and remains a priority for Sweden both in terms of foreign and security policy as well as humanitarily. The support contributes, among other things, to psychosocial support for girls and women in Ukraine, strengthened maternal healthcare, and protection for women's sexual and reproductive health and rights.

For example, the support to UNFPA reaches over 8.9 million people through the organization's 153 gynecological clinics, 27 mobile units for reproductive health, 3 mobile maternity units and 104 healthcare facilities. It is concrete humanitarian support for women living with a war that hits the civilian population hard and which is in its fifth year.

Madam Speaker! Under the Moderate-led government, Sweden strengthens the work for equality and freedom for girls and women through the reform agenda for aid, among other things by working to strengthen the EU's role as a global, driving actor for increased SRHR interventions. Sweden can do a lot, but Sweden cannot do everything. By cooperating and driving the issues in the EU, we ensure that more countries engage and contribute so that more girls and women obtain freedom and opportunity for care and health. It is also about supporting human rights.

Sweden also cooperates within the Nordic region regarding equality, SRHR and hbtqi rights. In the autumn of 2024, the Nordic ministers for equality adopted a common agenda that clarifies the Nordic responsibility and work to protect these rights.

Sweden is also an important donor to global equality actors such as the UN's organization for gender equality and empowerment, UN Women, and the UN Population Fund UNFPA. Sweden was chair of UN Women last year and was able to contribute to UN Women at a strategic level.

Sweden is also a recurring member of the UNFPA board and has entered into a new three-year agreement with UNFPA for the period 2026–2028 of 486.5 million kronor per year. In 2025, UD's support to UNFPA amounted to 621.75 million kronor including core support, extra support for work with safe abortions, as well as humanitarian efforts in Ukraine, Sudan, and Gaza.

Madam Speaker! Sweden contributes to the coordination between like-minded UN member states to strengthen commitments for girls' and women's full enjoyment of SRHR. In addition to UD's support, Sida provides program support to UNFPA with a focus on maternal healthcare, adolescent pregnancy education, and work against female genital mutilation. In total, Sweden's support to UNFPA in 2024 amounted to 1.2 billion kronor, which made Sweden the organization's fifth largest bilateral donor.

Madam Speaker! As I just mentioned, the Nordic Ministers for Equality agreed in 2024 on common commitments to strengthen cooperation regarding equality and SRHR. As chair of the Riksdag's cross-party SRHR group, I invited our colleagues from the Nordic parliaments' SRHR groups at the beginning of the year. It was a very productive working meeting and a good dialogue ahead of the women's conference in New York, but also to ensure that the issues are continuously high on the agenda.

Sweden continues to be a country that, together with its Nordic neighbors, leads the way in strengthening equality and civil rights for girls and women both here at home and around the world.

In this context and in view of the situation in our global environment, I would like to conclude by drawing attention to the girls and women in Iran. We see you! We see your strength and your courage, and we stand by you and by the side of the Iranian people. You give hope to millions of other girls and women around the world and show that change can be possible when the longing for freedom is stronger than hatred and oppression.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Katarina Tolgfors, for the speech!

I know that the member thinks that equality issues are important, but unfortunately, it is not reflected in the government's budget. On the contrary, we see instead how the government is cutting support for women and girls and SRHR. This is serious when we see how precisely women, girls and hbtqi-persons face a historical backlash.

War, conflicts and poverty hit women hardest, but instead of increasing support for vulnerable women and girls, the Swedish government leaves several strategies in the poorest and most vulnerable countries in Africa and Asia.

When resources decrease, the risk of sexual violence increases and access to protection is reduced. Many local women's rights organizations that are dependent on Swedish support are forced to pause or shut down their activities, which means that women lose support and protection.

Reduced investments in the SRHR area involve an increased risk of unsafe abortions and deteriorated maternal healthcare.

When support for agricultural cooperatives and women's economic empowerment decreases, women's opportunities, independence, and economic autonomy are limited.

When Sweden reduces support to both UN Women, UNFPA and Unaids as well as ends bilateral strategies in countries such as Liberia, Mozambique, Tanzania, Zimbabwe and others and closes several embassies, the presence and influence in gender equality issues decrease. Important work and important experience and competence that have been built up over decades risk being lost, and gender equality work as well as work for SRHR risk being rolled back.

Why do you abandon the most vulnerable and poorest women in the world in this way?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Johnsson Fornarve for the question. We have, together, been on a number of study visits abroad and seen how Swedish aid operates.

For the government, my party, and for me as a member of Parliament responsible for these issues, this is one of many times we debate that more money does not always mean that the interventions become most effective. It is, however, clear that of all the strategies that exist in the aid reform agenda, the support for SRHR and girls' and women's rights is one of the main strategies.

We make important prioritizations that are difficult but necessary because aid is not infinite. We must prioritize, and here it is clear that the government prioritizes Ukraine. But Sweden is also continued to be one of the world's largest donors when it comes to humanitarian support and aid.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! It is clear that resources matter and that it matters when we abandon the absolute poorest countries in the world. It is primarily girls and women who are hit hardest when we abandon the strategies in these countries.

A clear example where the withdrawn support will have negative consequences is Liberia. It is a country that has had a very positive development. The Swedish government's decision to phase out the long-term development cooperation means that targeted interventions for equality and women's rights, which were previously central to the Swedish strategy, risk disappearing. Organizations working with women's rights and peacebuilding in Liberia warn that this threatens peace and rights in the country. Previously, Sweden has, among other things, supported UN Women's work in the country.

Another example is Zimbabwe, where cooperation with women's unions and the textile industry, which work for safe workplaces, is threatened when aid is withdrawn. Local voices in Zimbabwe describe the situation as desperate and argue that the Swedish decision to leave the country means that hope disappears for many, especially the most vulnerable.

In Mozambique, the support has mainly gone to SRHR and the work with safe abortions but also to supporting women's participation in society and the opportunity for self-sufficiency.

All this work is now threatened, and I find it difficult to understand how one can abandon these absolutely most vulnerable women in the world.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! We would all wish that we had a huge bag of money to distribute.

Of course, aid affects countries. The Member takes Liberia as an example. There, the development is positive, and that is how aid is supposed to work. Swedish aid shall be used where it is most needed, and the goal is obviously for countries to manage on their own, lift the population out of poverty, and have a policy to support girls and women.

Sweden can do a lot, but other countries must also do more. As I mentioned in my speech, Sweden is therefore working a lot within the EU to support girls and women, so that SRHR is on the agenda and so that more girls and women get access to maternal and healthcare as well as education.

Sweden is, as said, still one of the largest donors, but sometimes it is not about quantity but about quality. The government has chosen to prioritize in its reform agenda, and it is a responsible way to manage tax funds and aid money.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Katarina Tolgfors for her genuine commitment to women's and, above all, girls' rights.

The EU is the world's largest aid donor, and right now planning is underway for the next long-term budget, which will last all the way until 2035. One issue that civil society in Europe is pushing for is that the EU should earmark 10 percent of its aid pot specifically for equality and SRHR.

I have heard that the Swedish government is not driving this issue. I hope that is wrong, but what does it actually look like? Is this an issue that the Swedish government could imagine driving?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! As I mentioned, Sweden is actively working within the EU even on these issues. Last year, I myself was sent by the Committee on Foreign Affairs to participate in the EU's Development Committee and subsequently reported back to the committee.

My view is that Sweden is actively working on all fronts, even when it comes to aid issues. The USA has withdrawn much of its aid, not least to girls and women, and then we must see what more we can do. But Sweden cannot alone compensate for this loss. Sweden is also not alone in withdrawing and reducing aid.

I am, however, convinced that the government is working on these issues, among others, to ensure the best possible outcome. It is a priority area for Sweden, and we are pushing forward on these issues also in the EU.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the answer.

I am pleased to hear that this is an issue that the government prioritizes, especially in connection with EU aid. I would therefore really like to appeal to the government to listen to civil society's demand for 10 percent. Even though one should be flexible, 10 percent for gender equality and SRHR is not much of the large aid cake. This can also be combined with, for example, Ukraine support and other prioritized areas.

My plea and wish is therefore that the Swedish government stands up for this 10-percent target in the EU's long-term budget.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! When the opposition debates aid, it is often about exact figures and more rarely about content and what one wants to achieve.

I share Member Lasse's hope that the EU will reach a goal and a budget where SRHR and the rights of girls and women are prioritized in the best possible way. I cannot stand here and state an exact level or sum, but Sweden is pushing forward on these issues. This is done by our Foreign Minister, our Minister for Development Cooperation and Foreign Trade, and our EU Minister in various contexts.

A majority of the countries must stand behind this, and here Sweden plays an important role. Both in parliamentary contexts, where we both figure, and in other contexts, Sweden has the opportunity to push forward, and Sweden does.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linnéa Wickman (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the speech and the commitment to SRHR issues.

The Moderates and the government say that SRHR is a priority area in Swedish aid policy. But when we now make a closing balance of this mandate period, we see, not least in the figures from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, that the total support in pure kronor to SRHR within aid is decreasing. At the same time, the development in the world is, to say the least, catastrophic.

How does the government's prioritization of SRHR align with the government's policy, which entails reduced support in pure kronor when the needs are increasing?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Wickman, for the question!

Återigen: I do not think one should fixate on the figures. Yes, Sweden is reducing the total aid. That is how it is, and it is a direction that we have a mandate for and that we have campaigned on.

At the same time, we see that in the current situation in the world, where needs are increasing and where a regression has occurred in many areas, not least when it comes to support for girls and women, one must be innovative and find new ways, new collaborations and new solutions.

It is not possible to always just say that we should throw more money into different projects, but what is important now is that we in Sweden work together with others but also ourselves. In the reform agenda for aid, one can see that priorities are being made so that the aid money we invest in different projects and channel through Sida and different organizations will have the greatest possible impact.

We cannot be in every country even though we see that the need is huge. Here we must work more together with others, and other countries must also step forward. It is something that Sweden is pushing for.

Member of Parliament Wickman and I, for example, are part of the parliamentary SRHR group, where we very recently met our Nordic colleagues. Together we advocate for these issues in an international context, and we will continue to do so. But more people must also engage in these issues. More countries must step forward and do more.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linnéa Wickman (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, member, for the answer!

The member says that we should not stare blindly at figures. I noted that the member also said in their speech that Sweden cannot do everything, but that is not something anyone has claimed either. However, I wonder: Is it really right that we back down? The resources in actual kronor are even decreasing within the aid areas that the government says are prioritized.

Given that one is now withdrawing from several countries mentioned in the debate, for example Mozambique and Afghanistan, where the largest part of the aid went to precisely SRHR, I wonder: Does the member truly think that it is a good development? I also wonder how the member views, for example, that the government could give a mandate to Sida to see how, with other aid strategies, one can save what can be saved and try to compensate, at least in the SRHR projects in different countries that ensure that girls and women get access to sexual education, contraceptives, and free and safe abortion.

Somewhere it is about what one does when the world changes. Sweden and the Nordic countries do a lot together. We agree that we are an important donor in this area, but precisely because of that, I want to assert that we need to step forward even more when we see this catastrophic development.

We have a moral responsibility, and we also have very good knowledge and experience in this area.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! I am proud that our government has SRHR and girls' and women's rights very high on the aid policy agenda. Yes, we are scaling back in some countries, but we are also investing more in other countries.

I will take Afghanistan as an example. It is not that Sweden has completely withdrawn from Afghanistan. Member Wickman's colleague – Member Alexandra Völker – and I sat in the parliamentary inquiry that evaluated Sweden's 20 years in Afghanistan. In the committee and in the inquiry that we submitted to the Foreign Minister two years ago, we were largely in agreement that support for Afghanistan under current conditions and under the Taliban regime must be reduced. On the other hand, Sweden still remains for precisely the reasons that the Member mentioned.

In 2025, Sweden's humanitarian aid to Afghanistan amounted to over 240 million kronor. It is channeled primarily through international organizations, for example World Food Programme, Unicef, UN Women and UNHCR. We also support the civil society organizations that may be on the ground. Sweden has unfortunately not been able to be in Afghanistan, but I heard as recently as two weeks ago that things are starting to brighten and that the Swedish Afghanistan Committee sees that there are opportunities to begin operating on the ground again.

Sweden also supports a country such as Afghanistan through multilateral support, the EU's aid program for Afghanistan, the World Bank, and the Asian Development Bank. Sweden is therefore not withdrawing totally from, for example, Afghanistan and the needs of girls and women. There has been an enormous regression for the freedom of girls and women in Afghanistan, but Sweden is still involved.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation number 2.

Vänsterpartiet strongly regrets that the government has abandoned the feminist foreign policy. Sweden has been a pioneer when it comes to equality, and to suddenly change direction is a blow to girls and women around the world.

The feminist foreign policy was not just a label, but it had a clear effect. This is shown, among other things, by the investigation by the Expert Group for Aid Analysis, EBA. It shows that the work for equality was intensified during the feminist foreign policy as well as that the feminist foreign policy strengthened Sweden's international leadership in equality issues. More countries are starting to follow the Swedish example. Now, that work is being rolled back by the government and the Sverigedemokraterna.

Violations of women's rights are the most common and extensive crimes against human rights. All over the world, women's lives are restricted by discriminatory legislation and social norms. Gender discrimination is a major cause of poverty, and women – who most often have the actual responsibility for the family's livelihood – often lack the most basic rights.

Women's rights are a key to development. Increasing women's opportunities for education and livelihood contributes to improving the individual woman's position, promotes equality in general, and also contributes to the development of society as a whole.

At the same time, it is important to emphasize that women around the world are, to a very high degree, actors themselves. It is therefore crucial that it is women in poor countries who set the agenda for the work on equality in development policy and that Sweden works to ensure that women are represented and included in all forms of decision-making processes. Equality is not only a human right but a prerequisite for sustainable development.

Women's participation shall not be conditional or temporary. To build real and sustainable equality, it is required that women can participate actively at all levels of society. The gender perspective shall permeate all areas, whether it concerns infrastructure investments, trade agreements, or arms exports. The work shall be goal-oriented and possible to evaluate and follow up.

Equality should not be a separate and isolated strategy in development cooperation. Vänsterpartiet wants to see integrated equality strategies that permeate the entire development policy, and of course, the feminist foreign policy should be reintroduced.

Women and girls around the world are currently facing a historical backlash regarding their sexual and reproductive rights and health. Political support and economic resources are decreasing as freedoms are restricted and voices are silenced among women and girls and among people of different sexual orientations, gender identities, and expressions. A clear example is the large reduction of American aid, which hits girls, women, and hbtqi persons particularly hard.

To be able to decide over one's own body and express one's own sexuality is a fundamental human right, but it is a right that is violated and restricted in many countries. Lack of access to contraceptives and sexual education, lack of maternal care, and strong restrictions on abortion rights are central obstacles to development and poverty reduction.

Access to clean water and basic sanitation is also an important equality issue. Securing access to clean water, sanitation, and hygiene, WASH, is crucial to being able to save lives worldwide. It is also important to secure girls' schooling, women's health, and children's survival. Every year, over 1 million mothers and newborns die due to infections directly linked to a lack of clean water, sanitation, and hygiene in connection with childbirth. This is shown by a report from Wateraid.

An area with growing challenges for SRHR is humanitarian crises. Maternal mortality, child marriage and sexualized violence are increasing as a result of armed conflicts. It is also important to remove the barriers that exclude certain groups from SRHR interventions. This can involve groups such as women and girls in rural areas, hbtqi persons, ethnic minorities and indigenous groups, children and young people, older people with disabilities and people on the move.

One of the most brutal expressions of the global gender order and violence against girls and women is female genital mutilation. Despite many countries having banned female genital mutilation, it occurs all too often in a number of countries. According to Unicef, an estimated 3 million girls are subjected to genital mutilation every year, and over 230 million girls and women live today with the consequences of genital mutilation. Aid can contribute to increasing knowledge about female genital mutilation and bringing an end to this brutal practice, which entails enormous suffering for the women and girls who are affected.

The government abandoned the feminist foreign policy but emphasizes that equality is a core value, which is difficult to take seriously when we see how aid and equality are decreasing. In the current strategy, the appropriation is reduced by 240 million kronor compared to the previous strategy period. The gender mainstreaming in Sida-financed aid was in 2024 at the lowest level measured for Swedish aid since OECD-DAC's measurements of equality began. Support for women's organizations is also decreasing, as is the support for the UN organizations that work with equality and SRHR: UN Women, UNFPA and Unaids.

In Agenda 2030, the world's countries have confirmed that all people shall have access to SRHR by 2030. In order for this to be possible, it is required that the issue of SRHR moves higher up on the agenda.

Vänsterpartiet argues that half of the aid should go to women and girls and 10 percent should be earmarked for SRHR, sexual and reproductive health and rights. In a time when equality, LGBTQ+ people's rights and the right to SRHR are under attack, Sweden needs to step up and act as a counterweight. Unfortunately, we do not see that today – on the contrary.

We mean that Sweden should be a clear voice for SRHR and especially for abortion, sex education and the rights of hbtq persons in the UN and other international contexts. Sweden must once again take the lead and again become a pioneer when it comes to the rights of women, girls and hbtqi persons as well as the self-evident right to SRHR. Support for UN bodies such as UN Women, UNFPA and Unaids must be strengthened, not reduced.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! On Sunday, we celebrated International Women's Day. Together with Nordic colleagues who also work with SRHR issues, I signed an article that emphasizes the importance of our Nordic countries continuing to cooperate on these issues and developing that cooperation given how much in the world around us is currently going the wrong way.

Such strengthened cooperation can be of decisive importance – not least in the UN Commission on the Status of Women, which has just succeeded in negotiating a document that was received with cheers yesterday. Two years ago, I was there myself and could witness how well-organized the forces are that challenge and attempt to restrict sexual and reproductive rights and equality. Therefore, we also need to be well-organized.

But what does SRHR, sexual and reproductive health and rights, actually entail? In large parts of the world, perhaps the primary focus is to be able to provide safe maternal and childbirth care and postnatal care.

South Sudan is the country where maternal mortality was highest during the period 2022–2024 with around 1,220 deaths per 100,000 births. That is 1.22 percent. One can compare it with our European countries, where in the best countries it is only 1–2 mothers per 100,000, that is 0.1–0.2 per mille, who die in connection with childbirth or the period immediately following.

When a mother dies, it is a catastrophe. In many developing countries, the mother, breast milk, and maternal care are the guarantee that a child will survive its first five years. If a mother dies, it is often not only the newborn child who dies, but also older siblings who have lost their mother run a significantly increased risk of not surviving their fifth birthday. It therefore has very serious consequences for the entire family if the mother dies. It is therefore a strategically important intervention to improve maternal and childbirth care.

At the two hospitals in Tanzania where I have worked, there is of course both maternal and obstetric care and child healthcare at the hospital. In large parts, the care resembles that which many of us have experienced. Furthermore, one travels out to surrounding villages and examines expectant mothers to check that everything is developing normally and to identify cases where it could become a risky delivery. For those women, a maternity home has been built next to the hospital so that they will be close to the hospital when the delivery approaches – a very practical example of Swedish aid.

Health education is also important to achieve changes and improve health and survival. Mothers who breastfeed their children, for example, do not become pregnant again as quickly, which gives the mother time to recover her strength while the child has time to grow and become less vulnerable when a younger sibling takes over the breast milk, which can be the only source of protein in the meager diet that can be common in the African countryside.

An effective way to give a woman the chance to recover between births is contraception. But even here, one can encounter obstacles. In many countries, it is forbidden to use contraception, at least unless the husband has approved it. Giving contraception to unmarried young girls can be a criminal act. That type of restriction is unfortunately increasing. So is the pressure against hbtqi-persons, where several countries have introduced the death penalty.

What I have listed here are some of the reasons why it is so important that Sweden cooperates with like-minded countries and gets decision-makers in other countries to understand that they are doing their residents a great service if they allow contraception and sex and relationship education.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has a long history of supporting SRHR, and it is a priority that the current government unswervingly upholds. This is also evident from the report. In total, Sweden is one of the world's five leading donors of aid. SRHR is one of the thematic priorities and is also included as a prioritized area within the appropriation for global health.

One aspect of SRHR is linked to another abbreviation that has been mentioned during the debate: WASH, water, sanitation and hygiene.

Exactly one year ago, I took a study trip to Bangladesh together with Member Janine Alm Ericson. We looked at how Swedish aid works with these issues in one of the world's most densely populated countries, which is also the country most vulnerable to climate change.

A completely natural part of a woman's life is menstruation, but in many parts of the world, it is taboo to talk about it. Therefore, the bleeding comes as a total surprise for many girls.

In the delta region of Bangladesh, there was a tradition where a girl who got her first period was locked in a dark shed and kept isolated there for a week, largely without food. She was regarded as impure and was not allowed to be with the rest of the family. This was, of course, a very terrifying experience for the girls, who did not know how to handle the bleeding. They used old cloth rags that they stuffed into their underwear and did not change them for entire days, with bacterial growth and risk of infections as a consequence. Many girls were taken out of school and married off after they had had their first period.

Through Wateraids' intervention, an initiative for change was taken. With education in schools and for families, they succeeded in turning the shame and the stigma of impurity into a pride that the body functions as it should and prepares for one to eventually be able to become a mother. They have developed an app where one can enter her menstrual cycle in the calendar and in that way be prepared and have menstrual protection with her to school when it is time. They have also equipped the schools with nice toilets with purified rainwater so that the girls can manage their hygiene.

It was a pure joy to see the young people and hear them tell their stories. The taboo was completely gone, and even the boys got involved. One boy proudly showed that he could now help both his sisters and his mother so that they would not be caught off guard by getting their period when they least expected it.

Madam Speaker! Another part of the SRHR work is directed towards female genital mutilation, which is both a painful and harmful practice in parts of Africa and the Middle East. Last year, another group of Members of Parliament visited a Maasai village in Kenya. Some of the members who are present here in the room today were also there. PMU is carrying out successful work there to put an end to the practice.

We met a group of former circumcisers who had all witnessed girls bleeding or dying from infections after the circumcision. When PMU's project manager could show that the custom had no support in Christianity, Islam, or among the Maasai's gods, a change process could begin, in which both youth and adults were involved. In this area, 80 percent had stopped with female genital mutilation.

Madam Speaker! With these practical examples of what the government's work on SRHR issues can result in, I would like to move for the approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! I would like to once again extend a big thank you to the member for a genuine commitment to these incredibly important issues. Thanks also for the contribution!

I am very pleased to be able to state that the government supported and pushed forward the incredibly important initiative that the association My Voice, My Choice spearheaded in Europe, which concerned the right to abortion. That is what I want to say. We also heard earlier today that the government is pushing forward for SRHR work when it comes to specifically EU aid.

I would still like to ask a question to Gudrun Brunegård which concerns exactly EU's aid, which is the largest aid in the world. I wonder if it is the case that the Christian Democrats within the government are pushing to ensure that a part of the EU's aid goes specifically to SRHR and equality work within the aid so that at least 10 or 15 percent, or a smaller amount – it can be more – goes to it.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Anna Lasses, for the recognition of the commitment we share and for this important question!

From the Kristdemokraterna side, we act exactly as the member says through the government. In the government, we have agreed on a reform agenda. What we have pushed for is that the priorities that exist in the Swedish reform agenda shall be reflected in the policy we drive in the EU.

Just as the member says, the EU's budget for aid is vastly larger than Sweden's. We can therefore get a fantastic return by getting support for the priorities we have already made – and we have also received support for that. However, it goes, just as member Tolgfors said here earlier, a bit too far towards micro-management to say that an exact percentage level should apply to a certain area.

We have specified which thematic priorities we want. There, women's and girls' right to empowerment and right to their own bodies as well as SRHR issues are prioritized issues, and these we are driving. On the other hand, we are not driving an exact percentage level.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! I recognize that as a governing politician, one is not eager to state an exact sum, as it can be incorrect. Just when it concerns the EU and when it is such a large context – with 27 members – and one really wants to try to clarify this, there can nevertheless still be a point in at least securing a somewhat definite share. This applies particularly in this issue, where we see it retreating so much.

The Chairman said that this is something that has been agreed upon in the reform agenda and that it is an issue that one is pushing for, but it is precisely during these weeks that the distribution of the EU's aid budget and how it should look for the next decade is finalized.

I want to ask again: Are you pushing a little extra right now for this issue in connection with the EU's long-term budget? Can there not be some point in at least having some kind of direction regarding what proportion should at least be secured for this? Then it can always be more.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! Now, Member Lasses did not sit in the Riksdag during the last parliamentary term, when the Centre was part of a government basis. She may therefore not share the experiences we now have of how risky it can be to specify an exact percentage or level. In negotiations, it is, after all, a give and take.

Just as the member suggests, one can be questioned if one specifies a level and then does not reach exactly that level but lands just below, or for that matter, just above. It is one of the reasons why I do not want to say that we shall allocate exactly 10 percent, even though it would have been heartbreaking in a way, but 5 percent is also a lot, and 9.5 percent is also a lot.

It is the direction that is what is important, and in that, SRHR issues are one of the prioritized issues.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Gudrun Brunegård, for a good speech! The Christian Democrats often speak about the importance of women's health globally, and I know that Gudrun has a personal commitment. She has previously made a contribution with her own work, and as was mentioned here, we have been on many trips where we have seen what Sweden's work can truly mean in practice.

At the same time, it is precisely the activities working with maternal care, contraceptives, WASH, work against female genital mutilation, and sexual education that are affected when support for SRHR decreases. When the USA now withdraws its support for these activities, the need also becomes greater than ever. At the same time, Sweden is reducing its support.

I would like to ask Gudrun Brunegård why the government chooses not to strengthen Sweden's work for women's health in this situation.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Janine Alm Ericson for all the good experiences we have had together when we have studied Swedish aid and for this question, which is very important. As the member knows from personal experience from the previous parliamentary term when Miljöpartiet sat in a government position, it is constant negotiations, and one does not always achieve exactly everything one wanted. It is well known that Kristdemokraterna want a one percent level. We have not quite reached that result, but on the other hand, we have maintained a world-leading aid. Sweden is still above the level that the UN has specified as a recommended target.

We have also introduced, for example, that the money is paid back to the aid when settlements are made for the expected reception of refugees in Sweden and the reception has not reached that level. On one hand, we have set a ceiling, and on the other, the previous year is evaluated, and if it is seen that the reception has not corresponded to this, the money is paid back. Overall, we land at approximately the level that the aid was at during 2022, after the Social Democrats' settlements during that spring.

In that way, we have therefore succeeded very well. On the other hand, we have now had to make major changes in light of the war that is ongoing in Ukraine and which requires very large efforts. We must not forget that a large part of the aid that is now given to Ukraine also covers SRHR. It is about women's and girls' healthcare and medical care. It is also about psychosocial support after abuse and such things.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Gudrun Brunegård for the answer.

Yes, Sweden still has a strong aid, but it is falling at an all too rapid pace. Sweden is no longer seen as a pioneer either; our voice has fallen significantly silent in this.

The agreement on the deductions that the Christian Democrats got through was very good. We in the Green Party agree that it is obviously a systemic error when one can make large deductions and Swedish municipalities risk becoming the largest recipient of Swedish aid.

When it comes to the aid to Ukraine, we are in agreement on that policy in this chamber, and we will also debate an extra supplementary budget regarding support to Ukraine very shortly. We must, however, still note that the equality component is decreasing even in that aid. I spoke with the Minister for Development Cooperation about that a few weeks ago.

Much can be said about the aid in general and about the lowered levels, but right now it is the SRHR part we are talking about. The government has put more money into its new SRHR strategy – but they are not actually paying it out. That is why we see that it has dropped and that the ambitions there are lacking.

I do, however, hear what Gudrun Brunegård says and, as mentioned, know of her commitment to the issue, so I just want to conclude by saying that I am cheering her on in every negotiation. It is a new spring budget motion now, and a women's forum is taking place in New York. I hope that the Kristdemokraterna will be able to make a difference and get more money through for equality and the SRHR budget moving forward.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Janine Alm Ericson again for the question, and I also thank her for the encouragement and support!

We have, as we have said, allocated a budget where SRHR is a priority area. Unfortunately, the minutes are rarely sufficient for everything one wants to say here, but given the changes that have been made by allocating such a large part of the aid to Ukraine, we have truly looked at what remains for the rest of the world, so to speak. There, SRHR is a protected area, and of course, the money must go to what it is intended for. It must be paid out so that women and girls truly receive their share of it.

Another prioritized area that was protected in the negotiations is the support for civil society organizations, which is completely intact. The same applies to the democracy billion and the budget that falls under the name the migration strategy and which is sometimes questioned. It is about providing safe and secure escape routes as well as opportunities for refugees to receive protection and tolerable living conditions in refugee camps and so on. Part of that also goes to voluntary return, that is, that one should be able to return, and to being able to be repatriated.

These four areas are completely intact, and SRHR lies there as one of the definitely highest prioritized areas.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Gudrun Brunegård, for the speech and for the commitment to these issues!

Unfortunately, we see today how women and girls around the world are facing a historical backlash precisely when it comes to sexual and reproductive rights and health, not least due to the cuts in American aid. There, we argue that Sweden must step up and instead increase support for equality and SRHR. Unfortunately, we see in the budget, however, that it is decreasing, and we consider that to be serious.

I hope, just like previous speakers, that the Christian Democrats can push in the government so that support for SRHR and equality will increase, but I am actually wondering what the Christian Democrats think about Sweden having left some of the poorest countries in Africa and Asia to their fate. Important strategies have been abandoned, for example the one for Tanzania, where the member himself has been involved and which the member also speaks about.

When Sweden leaves Tanzania, a country in which we have been active for decades, much competence, experience, and knowledge will be lost. Much of the work we have built up also risks being rolled back. Women and girls are hit particularly hard, once again, and the work with SRHR is also particularly hard hit. UN Women shows, for example, in a report that half of all women's organizations existing locally in Tanzania simply risk collapsing or being unable to continue their work. This is very serious.

What does the member think about the fact that Sweden has left both the important strategy for Tanzania and the other strategies in Africa?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Lotta Johnsson Fornarve, for the question!

These are very important issues. Just as I have said in previous debates, it is painful to reach a conclusion in areas where one has been involved for a very long period. It cannot be done without some struggle. But nevertheless: The needs that now exist in Ukraine are so gigantically large that we, as neighbors, cannot turn a blind eye to what is happening there.

When it comes to Tanzania, for example, Swedish aid has been there as long as Sida has existed. But before that, it had also been there for over a hundred years through civil society organizations, and the civil society organizations continue to exist with or without Sida's support. It is also not the case that Sida is prohibited from paying out support to civil society organizations working within the countries where Sweden is terminating the bilateral agreements, but one can continue to work both within the SRHR strategy, within the democracy billion, within the humanitarian grant and so on.

Let us take Tanzania as an example! There, Swedish aid has, for instance, existed for perhaps 40–50 years. At the hospital where I worked for the last two years, and which I have returned to many times since then, they have not received any Sida support at all since the 90s. Instead, they have received support through Swedish organizations that, for example, have had secondhand shops and paid a small amount of support. A couple of years ago, however, the hospital was equipped with solar cells, which means they no longer need that support.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Gudrun Brunegård! It is clear that we shall support Ukraine, but we mean that that support must be taken from something other than aid. We must simply find additional aid for Ukraine. The world's most vulnerable people should not have to step back so that we can support Ukraine.

Regarding the strategies that have now been submitted, it is clear that it will be a huge setback for ordinary people in Tanzania and several other countries. This is also expressed by leading representatives for these countries. This applies not least to the rights of women and girls, SRHR, and women's opportunities for self-sufficiency. For example, Tanzania is an extremely poor country where women need support to increase their opportunity for their own economic self-sufficiency. This is now being rolled back as the support decreases. It is clear that it is a huge setback for the absolutely poorest and most vulnerable countries, especially for women and girls.

I hope that the Christian Democrats can somehow change this and push for the strategies to be resumed. I believe it is difficult, but I think it is extremely important. The absolute poorest people in the world should not have to pay the price for the support to Ukraine. We must try to find other means for it.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank you again for the opportunity to develop these issues and discussions, which require much reflection.

The idea with aid is that it should support people and countries in such a way that they eventually manage on their own. That was what I was referring to in the description of the hospital that I have worked on. For decades, different types of aid have been given which have contributed to that hospital now standing on its own feet. It no longer needs Swedish support, but our support has provided the conditions.

That is how we need to work strategically. Sometimes, unfortunately, the aid has been such that one has only given and given and not had a plan forward for how to phase it out. At the same moment that we begin to provide aid, we must also see how we will be able to phase it out through strategic development steps. It is that way of working that we need to become better at, I believe, so that abrupt interruptions do not need to occur when another catastrophe happens in the world.

That is also how many of the UN organizations work. An effort is made during a period with the help of core funding from Sweden, but when a shortage arises in another area, those funds are moved. We do not see it exactly as closely from our perspective. But for the people who, for example, lose the support after an earthquake when a flood disaster suddenly occurs somewhere else, it is naturally just as painful. We need to work long-term to provide these development opportunities, and that is the way of working we are introducing.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anna Lasses (C)

Mr. Speaker! 122 million girls do not go to school at all. 230 million girls and women are subjected to female genital mutilation. 696 million people lack access to clean water. A staggering 1.5 billion people lack access to a toilet. This is how it looks right now. It will probably look even worse in a year's time, because equality in the world is regressing, as is the support for SRHR.

On December 5, the government announced that it is phasing out aid to Liberia and simultaneously closing the embassy. In the debate in Sweden, there was a cheer among the opponents of aid, as they believe that this type of support is merely a waste of taxpayers' money and leads nowhere. Another picture is that Swedish aid has contributed to SRHR issues moving from being completely taboo in Liberia to now being discussed in the media and among decision-makers.

One of the projects concerned sex education in rural areas. With Swedish support, young people had received information about their bodies and rights. Sex education is a given for us. But sometimes we seem to forget what difference it has made for our own society regarding equality and the rights of hbtqi persons. In Liberia, 80 percent of young people under 20 lack access to sex education and contraceptives. This is just one example of how a relatively small amount of money can make a big difference and how the removal of that same money causes enormous harm.

Mr. Speaker! We know that one of the most effective ways to reduce oppression and lift people out of poverty is to focus on girls and women, increase equality, and ensure that women's health is prioritized, that women's empowerment increases, and that girls are allowed to go to school. When this happens, poverty decreases, and democracy is promoted. We are now, however, seeing a contrary development in the world. When a few men suddenly lay claim to ruling the entire world, equality decreases. Hbtqi people's rights retreat, oppression increases, and poverty increases. Climate change accelerates the process through migration flows and increased conflicts, and the negative spiral is in full swing.

That is why it is very wise for the government to say that we must invest extra much in SRHR, which to a large extent is about exactly increasing equality and hbtqi persons' rights. But just because one says something does not make it true. The truth is that the support in kronor for equality and SRHR has decreased constantly ever since 2018, that is to say both under the previous government and under this government, which says it prioritizes these issues.

A group that is hit extra hard by these cuts is hbtqi persons. Their rights are affected to the highest degree by assistance to SRHR. But the government is not only reducing the money for equality and SRHR but also chooses at the same time to leave the most vulnerable contexts, which of course affects women, girls, and hbtqi persons extra much.

Mali, Burkina Faso and Liberia are countries where Sweden has chosen to phase out long-term development aid. They are all examples of countries where the rights of hbtqi persons are non-existent and where the rights of women and girls are restricted. In Mali, almost nine out of ten girls are subjected to female genital mutilation. In these countries, Sweden has contributed to long-term projects that until now have inspired hope and begun to yield results, but which are now threatened by Sweden withdrawing its support.

Mr. Speaker! In actual practice, the government has during this mandate period with great clarity prioritized three other areas within Swedish aid.

The first is projects in middle-income countries. Often, it is about promoting Swedish companies and trade. Let me emphasize that many of these projects are good and important. It can be about projects that reduce climate emissions and promote technological development, which is great. In a world where we had infinite aid, I would have applauded. But in a world where aid is decreasing significantly, we need to think smartly and coordinate with other aid donors. Since this is an area where one of the largest pots in the EU's aid exists, perhaps we in Sweden should primarily – that is, not one hundred percent – focus on other parts of the aid, which otherwise risk being left completely without funds.

The second is the support for Ukraine, which is vital. It is so important that we in Centerpartiet have chosen to pull out all support for Ukraine and create a fund corresponding to 1 percent of GDP, where both civilian and military support are ensured.

The third is to use aid as an instrument in migration policy – as a means to get countries to accept persons that Sweden wants to deport. Here, the risk of corruption is obvious, which we can also see in the case with Somalia that is currently being reviewed by the Committee on the Constitution. In other words: No, aid shall not be an instrument for deporting people.

Mr. Speaker! The EU is the world's largest aid donor. Right now, the EU's long-term budget is being negotiated. This means that in the coming weeks, it will be decided what direction the EU's aid should take during 2028–2035. This means that we, as a member of the EU, have an extra great opportunity to be involved and influence the development during the next ten-year period.

Across Europe, a mobilization is currently taking place in civil society. They are demanding that 10 percent of aid be earmarked for gender equality and SRHR. Given how effective gender equality and SRHR are for lifting people out of poverty and oppression, this should be a "no-brainer".

The question now is: Will we be able to achieve this, and will Sweden push to ensure that it happens? Earlier today we heard that it is a priority for Sweden's government. I hope and wish that people really push so that a sufficiently large share of the EU's aid goes to precisely those issues.

Unfortunately, I also see that one is actively pushing along the same tracks as in Sweden. The support for Ukraine is naturally positive, but it should be lifted out of the aid. Aid is also being used as a migration tool to deport people.

Finally, we must also speak about the effects that the USA's slaughter of the world's largest aid entails regarding health risks for the entire world. I am, of course, speaking about access to vaccination programs and about access to clean water.

It is a question for everyone, and it is a question of equality. When girls are forced to travel long distances to fetch water, they cannot go to school. When there is no access to toilets, it becomes a safety issue, as many girls and women are raped when they relieve themselves in the dark or have to go to the village's only public toilet.

When children are not vaccinated, the risk of infections and epidemics increases – and in the long run, for pandemics that spread across the entire world. Access to water and vaccines is not about charity, it is about all of our security.

Equality and the rights of LGBTQI people are not just about justice, but about standing up for our democratic rights. Taking a place as a donor is not about being kind. It is about influence and about power. It is about not letting through men like Putin, Jinping and others who do everything to deprive individuals of their right to choose how they want to live their own lives.

Naturally, we stand behind the reservations we have, but I still want to particularly highlight reservation number 4.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Sexual and reproductive health and rights, SRHR, are fundamentally about something very simple. It is the right to decide over one's own body, the right to knowledge about sexuality and reproduction, and the right to contraceptives, maternity care, and safe abortion. But it is also the right to live without violence, coercion, and discrimination.

One might think this is obvious, but for women and girls all around the world, these rights are literally the difference between life and death. Every day, hundreds of women die from complications related to pregnancy and childbirth. These are deaths that, in the vast majority of cases, could have been prevented with access to basic healthcare, contraceptives, and knowledge.

SRHR is therefore not a small issue in development policy but one of the most decisive. Despite this, we are currently seeing a clear global backlash against those rights. Anti-abortion movements are being organized internationally, the rights of hbtqi persons are being attacked in more and more countries, and the work for equality is being questioned in a way that we have not seen for a long time.

A clear example is that the USA has now rejoined the so-called Geneva Consensus Declaration, a global anti-abortion pact led by countries such as Belarus, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. The consequence of that policy is completely concrete. When support for SRHR is withdrawn, health clinics are closed, which means that access to contraceptives decreases and safe abortion care becomes harder to access. This, in turn, leads to child pregnancies and illegal abortions. It is women and girls who pay the price, and it is a policy that kills women.

One of the most brutal expressions of the violence directed against girls and women is female genital mutilation. It violates girls' bodily integrity, causes lifelong physical and mental pain, and constitutes a serious violation of human rights.

According to Unicef, around 3 million girls are subjected to female genital mutilation every year, and 230 million girls and women live today with the consequences of having been mutilated. Swedish aid plays a major role in the work to stop this.

Despite significant cuts in aid, this work must continue. Experience shows that real change requires long-term efforts that build trust with local leaders, religious representatives, and decision-makers.

When people in the affected societies organize themselves and receive support, norms will change, and a very great amount of suffering will be avoided. Sweden has contributed here for very many years. It is a work that must continue so that there can be an end to the brutal custom.

For a long time, Sweden was an international pioneer in the work of equality. The feminist foreign policy meant that equality and women's rights were placed at the center of Swedish foreign and development policy.

Strengthening the rights of women and girls – their civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights – is one of the most effective ways to combat poverty and create sustainable development.

When women receive education and their own income, entire societies are strengthened. When girls are able to decide over their own bodies, they can stay in school, participate in the workforce and contribute to economic development. It is therefore not just a matter of rights. It is also a fundamental prerequisite for economic and social development.

Against that background, the government's decision to phase out the feminist foreign policy was remarkably ill-considered. It is said that it is only the label. But today we have the results. The government also says that SRHR will continue to be a priority in Swedish aid. But when one looks at the finances, a different picture emerges.

During the mandate period, support to central organizations such as UN Women and UNFPA has decreased. Country strategies have been cut or removed, and changes in aid have strongly affected organizations working specifically with SRHR around the world – not least due to the Swedish reduction of funds to USAID and now, additionally, the entire decommissioning.

During 2024 and 2025, the government also decided to phase out aid to half of Sweden's partner countries outside of Europe. There are a total of 13 countries. This means that Sweden is de facto abandoning women and girls in a long line of countries in Asia and Africa.

This is happening at the same time as the government says that equality is a priority. We also see that aid with an equality component has decreased from 74 percent in 2023 to 65 percent in 2024, which is far from the peak of 86 percent in 2019.

This is happening at the same time as the need for support is increasing, while rights are being attacked globally and while international aid is decreasing dramatically.

The situation has also changed further since the government's SRHR strategy was adopted. The strategy was developed before the American administration shut down USAID and implemented extensive cuts in aid. In a very short time, large parts of the global aid have disappeared.

This is also very clearly visible in the SRHR area. Programs for counseling and family planning are being shut down, access to contraceptives is decreasing, and organizations working for the rights of women and hbtqi persons face very difficult situations.

In this situation, Sweden should demonstrate clearer international leadership. Instead, the government continues to cut the Swedish aid budget. It is deeply problematic.

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet argues that SRHR must be a high-priority area in Swedish development policy for real. Sweden must be a strong voice to guarantee access to SRHR also globally. Our resources and our international leadership are needed more than ever.

We now need to strengthen support for safe abortions, sex education, contraceptives, maternal care, and other basic health services. We also need to strengthen support for civil society organizations that work for the rights of women and hbtqi persons around the world.

Sweden should therefore prioritize additional resources for SRHR, strengthen support for the organizations that work with these issues, and mobilize like-minded countries to meet the growing opposition to the rights of women and girls. In a situation where others are withdrawing, Sweden must step forward.

Global health is also about other fundamental prerequisites. The lack of clean water, sanitation, and hygiene accounts for around 10 percent of the global burden of disease today. Ensuring access to clean water and functioning sanitation – what we call WASH – thus saves lives, but it is also crucial for girls' schooling, women's health, and children's survival.

Vaccinations are another part of the greatest successes in modern medicine. Every year, around 3 million lives are saved thanks to vaccines. Despite this, millions of children still lack the protection they could receive.

Therefore, Sweden must continue to be a strong voice for global health through support for vaccination programs, HIV prevention, clean water and sanitation, as well as the work for sexual and reproductive health and rights. But here, the government is reducing the support, and it will have serious consequences.

History unfortunately shows that freedoms and rights can never be taken for granted. They must be won and defended, time and again. Now, as the opposition to women's and girls' rights grows globally, countries are needed that are prepared to stand up for them. Sweden can be such a country – a country that, in both words and actions, defends girls' and women's rights all around the world.

This government certainly says the right words but makes completely different priorities. When access to care, knowledge, and rights shrinks in the world, Sweden's ambitions must grow and not diminish.

Mr. Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 3.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden's aid budget is large – 53 billion kronor – and we are one of the world's largest aid donors per capita.

One of the Tidö parties' priority areas is sexual and reproductive health. I am therefore pleased that in this aid debate we can focus on precisely that thematic area.

We are not treating any new proposal from the government in the report, but rather it concerns proposals from the parliamentary parties. The Sweden Democrats move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision to reject all motion requests. This does not, however, mean that we do not care about the issue, but rather the opposite.

SRHR is one of the Tidö parties' priority areas for Swedish aid. Several of the proposals in the report concern measures that are already being implemented by the government; others concern financial priorities within the aid budget where the government has chosen to do things differently.

I believe that all parties in the Swedish Riksdag think that global sexual and reproductive health is important. Therefore, Sweden is a major core donor to, among others, the UN Population Fund, Unicef, and the Global Fund. But Sweden's support is not enough, and the collective global support for SRHR is not enough. Many interventions have had to be reduced or discontinued as a result of the USA making radical changes in its international aid. The USA contributed over half of all global aid that went to SRHR.

This financial gap cannot be covered by Sweden. We are therefore working actively, not only through our own funding but by using the strong trust Sweden has. We use our voice to influence like-minded countries to increase support for SRHR. This applies in particular within the EU; a part of Sweden's total aid is indeed channeled through there.

Why do we do this then? Why is SRHR important? Well, it contributes to the individual's living conditions and rights, but it also affects global issues that concern and can concern Sweden directly.

For example, it is predicted that Africa will have an enormous population increase. This will affect Sweden, not least when it comes to migration. We are making efforts to contribute with family planning and information about contraceptives and what works best. It is about spreading knowledge and education, partly to young people, partly to women of childbearing age.

Pandemics and other deadly diseases are something that can reach Sweden, Europe, and other parts of the world. It is a common interest for us to counteract this. It is therefore important that we contribute to curbing this even in other countries.

SRHR enables individuals to strengthen their own economic development. In the long run, it contributes to them having a greater opportunity to continue living where they are and to develop their own communities there and contribute to a better state. It will contribute to our aid being able to gradually begin to decrease.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 21.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)