Response to interpellation 2025/26:142 on the increased insecurity for LGBTQI persons

Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Ulrika Westerlund has asked me in what way I and the government intend to act to counter the development where hbtqi persons feel increasingly insecure, including in school. Ulrika Westerlund has also asked me if I and the government intend to proceed with the proposals to worsen sex education according to the Curriculum Investigation's proposals. Ulrika Westerlund has also asked me in what way I and the government in that case intend to compensate for the reduced knowledge transfer to all young people in issues concerning sexuality, consent, hbtqi persons' rights and honor-related violence and oppression.

To begin with, I want to be clear that no student or staff member should have to be subjected to discrimination or offensive treatment in school. Everyone should be able to live their lives in freedom and safety regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. At the same time, threats, hate and discrimination against hbtqi persons still occur. The government's work for hbtqi persons' equal rights and opportunities therefore continues to be both powerful and long-term.

The school has, according to the Education Act (2010:800) and the Discrimination Act (2008:567), an obligation to actively counteract all forms of discrimination and offensive treatment. If someone is subjected to such treatment, it is the school's obligation to act.

Regarding the proposal that the Curriculum Inquiry submits in the report Knowledge for all – new curricula with a focus on teaching and learning (SOU 2025:19), the government considers that it can constitute an important basis in the work to develop sex education. It needs to become much clearer what the students are to learn and when, something that also includes sex education. It is not reasonable that the teaching in sexuality differs so much depending on which school the student attends. The Curriculum Inquiry proposes that the subject content within the knowledge area of sexuality, consent, and relationships be concentrated into relevant subjects in the curricula such as biology, social studies, and home and consumer studies, and that the responsibility is thus more clearly directed towards the teachers responsible for the teaching. The government will return to exactly how the proposal is taken forward.

The government is also implementing a number of different measures to strengthen the equal rights and opportunities of LGBTQI persons. In January 2025, the government decided on a new action plan for the equal rights and opportunities of LGBTQI persons, which is a central starting point for the work in Sweden.

The Swedish National Agency for Education is one of several LGBTQI-strategic agencies. The agency has the task of promoting the equal rights and opportunities of LGBTQI persons, among other things through its mandate to strengthen the systematic work against honor-related violence and oppression within the school system, which also includes LGBTQI persons (U2022/02559).

The Government has also tasked Forum för levande historia to both develop knowledge support for public activities regarding equal rights and opportunities for hbtqi persons (A2024/00980), and to conduct a study of Swedish schoolchildren's attitudes towards, among others, hbtqi persons (A2023/00959).

I want to conclude by once again underlining that no student or staff member in the school shall be subjected to discrimination or offensive treatment. It is one of the government's goals that there should be zero tolerance towards all forms of bullying and harassment in Swedish schools.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for Education and Integration for the answer.

I appreciate the opportunity to have a slightly more in-depth discussion about some of the challenges regarding the increased insecurity of LGBTQI people.

During 2021 and parts of 2022, I worked at MUCF on preparing a report about the living conditions of young hbtqi people in Sweden. It covered many areas, for example health, work life and leisure activities. Education and school are a large part of the report.

The young people whom we interviewed and who responded to our survey questionnaires unfortunately had many bad experiences to share. In our report, we wrote that it concerns a lack of education on LGBTQI issues, a lack of LGBTQI perspectives in, for example, sex and cohabitation education, exposure to discrimination, and other LGBTQI-negativity.

To strengthen the work of ensuring the rights of young hbtqi persons within schools, so that they can participate in education on equal terms, we proposed a number of different measures in 2022, including that the Skolinspektionen could be commissioned to carry out a thematic quality review or a thematic inspection of the school's work with hbtqi issues.

A thematic quality review can focus on how the LGBTQI perspective has been integrated into the teaching of certain subjects. And a thematic supervision can focus on how schools address problems with discrimination and other vulnerabilities that affect specifically LGBTQI students.

The reason for those proposals was that we have seen many examples of stories indicating that the work with LGBTQI issues was still largely personal. Many students told that there was a firebrand at their school; there was a teacher who was particularly committed. And if it hadn't been for that person, it would have been even worse.

It is not satisfactory, just as the Minister points out, that there are such differences between different schools. That is why we try to steer via authorities.

There is still a lack of systematically compiled knowledge on how work regarding LGBTQI issues is conducted in schools today. This applies to both the content of the teaching and how LGBTQI students are met during their time at school.

The government could also give Skolverket the mandate to develop support material for work on LGBTQI issues, as part of the work on values, and strengthen and highlight the LGBTQI perspective within the framework of the work with the implementation of the new curricula. The Equality Ombudsman and Skolverket could also be given a joint mandate.

These are just some thoughts. There are surely many other measures that could also be taken.

The Minister explains in his answer regarding the relevant laws and the requirements that various authorities have to act in accordance with these. These laws, for example the Discrimination Act, naturally already existed when MUCF received its mandate from the previous government, and we submitted our proposals because we believed that additional measures were required. I mean that is still the case.

That an agency is LGBTQI-strategic has no effect in itself, other than that more people at the agency hopefully gain an understanding of why it is important to work with these issues. They also get access to networks and expertise from the different LGBTQI-strategic agencies. But for real change, targeted assignments that are resourced are often required.

The Minister mentions some such assignments, among others to Skolverket to strengthen systematic work against honor-related violence and oppression and some assignments to Forum för levande historia. It is, of course, welcome. But I believe that even more specific and targeted assignments are necessary to begin addressing the increased insecurity, as, for example, RFSL and RFSL Ungdom have reported.

I still want to ask the minister if any additional measures are planned, particularly in the school environment but also in general, to counteract the increased insecurity that many of Sweden's LGBTQI persons are experiencing right now.

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank Ulrika Westerlund, who has posed the question to Simona Mohamsson, and for the opportunity to debate this.

I intend to stick to the sex education. In the next debate, we will, in fact, have reason to discuss the safety of hbtqi persons more in-depth.

Sex education in Sweden is quite unique in its kind. And we have many times received quite a lot of praise for having just that type of sex education. But there are, as the Minister himself mentioned, quite large gaps when it comes to the equality in the education offered at the country's different schools.

I can take myself as an example. I went to a private independent school in Skärholmen. When I have spoken with others my age about this in recent days, I have understood that my sex education was extremely limited in comparison to others. It illustrates the problem: when sex education becomes arbitrary and when it depends on the individual teachers' commitment to the issue, students suffer. And if we focus on hbtqi persons, it is primarily about the knowledge of what hbtqi persons' rights are and that one should receive the basic knowledge about all people's equal value.

Mr. Speaker! I want to focus on the criticism of the proposed changes and what they contain, because I want to get some answers.

RFSU has pointed out that the removal of the principal's explicit responsibility for sex education is a threat. It can lead to arbitrary implementation and compliance of the sex education. If the principal no longer has responsibility for it, it could be that schools will carry out the sex education depending on whether the teacher considers it important or not. Therefore, it is important that the entire school receives such a responsibility via the principal.

I have noted, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister has rejected the criticism quite harshly and called it lies. It is somewhat remarkable. One could instead have invited a dialogue with civil society and a discussion on how we can strengthen sex education. What I can see seems to be something that the Minister still wants.

I still want to ask: If the government considers that it will not make any deteriorations, why does it not engage in a dialogue with civil society to jointly arrive at a product that actually strengthens sex education and ensures that knowledge about hbtqi people's rights is increased in schools? Through that, one can also increase the safety for these young people.

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

Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I completely agree with Member Westerlund's observation that this is a task to defend our Swedish and democratic values. That task is something that we constantly need to accelerate. We know, however, that there are forces working in the opposite direction, and we cannot meet halfway but must always ensure that we defend the values that many of us, including many in this chamber previously, have fought very hard for so that we can have them today.

That is also why the government has taken several measures and continues to follow the developments closely, not least through the assignment to Forum för levande historia, which I mentioned. They are to carry out studies on Swedish schoolchildren's attitudes towards hbtqi persons. Knowledge is also a way to create such a change.

Another important aspect in the work for a safe school is that there is knowledge among the staff working in the school. Here, several authorities can offer support. For example, the Agency for Youth and Civil Society Issues has a mandate to strengthen the conditions for school management and staff to promote a safe school and counteract homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia among young people and to create an open and inclusive environment for young hbtqi persons in school.

Another part concerns that school staff should have the opportunity to set boundaries and intervene if and when students do not behave as they should in school. Here, the government is taking several measures to increase teachers' powers and, for example, the possibility to expel students from the classroom. That is also an important boundary setting to ensure that all students behave and receive these Swedish values.

I will take the opportunity to answer the questions regarding the upcoming curricula. I will continue to be incredibly clear every time I get the chance that we will present proposals that strengthen sex education in Swedish schools. We are now developing new curricula where sex education will be given a significantly stronger role. This means that we will make it clearer what students should learn and make the teaching more equitable across the entire country. And it shall take place in relevant subjects.

Today, there is a great difference between different schools in terms of what the sex education looks like. That is bad, and it has resulted in ambiguity in the curricula. With the new curricula, we want to create exactly that: clarity and a clear expectation of who should handle it in the teaching and when. That is how we create equality. And that is how we move away from the situation we have today, where it is a few individual, fantastic enthusiasts, teachers or principals who step up and make room for these incredibly important issues. Instead, it should be clear what should be taught, when it should be taught, and who has the responsibility to teach it. It should not be optional – again.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you again for the answer.

Now it is time for a bit of a shift. I intend to focus on the sex education, just as my co-debater Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro.

It is two different investigations, so it is a bit messy. The curriculum investigation's proposal to, as the minister described it earlier, concentrate the subject content that exists within the knowledge area of sexuality, consent, and relationships to relevant subjects in the syllabi, for example biology and social studies, would lead to the responsibility being directed more clearly towards the teachers responsible for the teaching. But this has met very strong criticism from most referral bodies. Therefore, it is interesting to hear what the minister and the government think about that.

I would like to particularly highlight the Children's Ombudsman's referral statement. It states, among other things, as follows, which the Minister surely is aware of: "The Children's Ombudsman is strongly critical of the part of the investigation's proposal which implies that areas concerning sexuality, consent and relationships as well as honor-related violence and oppression are removed from the school's curricula, which affects the school's teaching, goals and mission. These issues affect children's entire school environment and education, and it must therefore be clear from the state's side that the issues shall be addressed repeatedly and across subjects in children's and young people's education."

The Children's Ombudsman also writes: ”Questions about sexuality, consent and relationships and honor-related violence and oppression need to be addressed together in the curriculum. It should be clear for both students and school staff that many of the problems that exist for children growing up in an honor context concern the questions touched upon by sexuality, consent and relationships, such as sexual self-determination, norms of virginity, the possibility to explore one's sexual orientation and gender identity as well as the possibility to choose or opt out of relationships. By addressing them together, it is avoided that honor-related violence and oppression becomes a silo in values-based work and teaching, and at the same time, teaching and conversations about sexuality, consent and relationships become relevant for children in this situation of vulnerability as well.”

The Children's Ombudsman has also presented a proposal that knowledge about honor-related violence and oppression should be included in the preschool curriculum, as honor norms risk affecting even very young children. The Children's Ombudsman is also looking into who should be responsible, which was raised earlier in the debate. It is "necessary that the principal also continues to have a special responsibility" for the education, the Children's Ombudsman believes. "If the issues ... are only included in the curricula for four subjects, the area loses dignity and becomes an issue for individual teachers." We risk falling into the "zealot" issue again. "It then becomes to a greater extent personal, which does not benefit children and young people. ... The Children's Ombudsman believes that it has been very positive that these writings were included in the school's curricula in 2022." The proposal from the Curriculum Investigation "risks having major consequences for children and young people, especially those children and young people who are exposed to honor-related violence and oppression who live furthest from their human rights," the BO believes.

RFSU is another critical referral body. It is emphasized that these are two simultaneously proposed changes that together risk having far-reaching consequences. Sex education is proposed to be removed from the school's goals and mission. The principal shall no longer be responsible for its implementation; instead, it falls on individual teachers. These are referred to curricula, but no one knows yet how they are to be designed. At the same time, another investigation proposes that the graduation goal regarding sex education should be removed from teacher training. This feels like a very unfortunate combination. It appears highly likely, RFSU argues, that this risks having far-reaching and unwanted consequences.

My second question to the Minister is how she and the government have so far reasoned regarding this criticism, of which these are only two examples, and how one thinks further more concretely regarding how we as a society shall ensure that young people receive the knowledge about sexuality, consent, self-determination and norms that they have a right to.

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Mr. Speaker! I think it is becoming a bit difficult to get answers. The Government says it is eager to tackle the inequality in sex education. We have some quite heavy bodies that are critical of the changes being proposed. One of them, the Children's Ombudsman, was mentioned by Ulrika Westerlund just now. Why has the Government not initiated a dialogue with the referral bodies that are deeply critical of the proposed changes? It seems quite difficult for me to understand, Mr. Speaker. If one now wants to strengthen sex education and has the luxury of having a strong civil society with broad knowledge, much fact, and experience in the areas, which we have in Sweden, I do not understand why one does not want to conduct a dialogue with them to reach the goal that the Minister at least expresses that they want to achieve.

Instead, one is out in the media and pushing quite hard against civil society. One does not seem to want to take in the criticism that has been put forward. My impression is that the criticism is put forward for the simple reason that the referral bodies do not want children and young people to receive a sex education that is worse than it is today. They do not want children and young people to receive a sex education that is unequal, so that one gets one type of sex education if one attends one school and another type if one attends another school. Perhaps one may not receive any adequate sex education at all.

My question remains, Mr. Speaker, as I received no answer to it. Why does the government not invite the deeply critical referral bodies to jointly formulate a response to the existing concern and strengthen sex education for all children and young people in Sweden?

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

Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Today, the principal does not have a specific responsibility for students learning to read, write, and count. Is anyone claiming that those skills are under attack? No, this is merely rhetoric that lacks any grounding in reality.

Mr. Speaker! I think it is serious to deceive young people into thinking that sex education is under threat. I also think it is serious to say that sex education will lose in dignity, because that implies that sex education works today. But it still seems to me and the members that it does not. It doesn't matter who the person is – that passionate teacher. That is what we want to move away from. We want to move away from it being person-dependent. Instead, it should be course-dependent. It should not be optional, and it should not be able to be opted out of. One should not be able to opt out because one does not dare, does not have the strength, or is not able to have these discussions.

I myself have a background of working as a social policy worker in vulnerable areas. I have seen when teachers have had to fight to be able to talk about these issues. Sometimes they were afraid of what the consequences would be for themselves, as they did not have the principal on their side. Sometimes they couldn't handle it.

In mathematics, we calculate. In handicrafts, we carve. In social sciences and biology, we will have the opportunity to talk about these important issues. It is not strange. We do the same with other subjects. Why would one not want to upgrade just sex education?

Again: I really want to extend a hand. Today we see great differences between schools in terms of sex education. To have status quo, to have it as it is today, is not an option. Then we do not provide the same opportunities. That is why the new curricula must become much clearer.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer. I want to point out once again that it is not we, from the Green Party and the Social Democrats, debating here in the chamber who have raised these concerns without a very broad group of referral bodies. Almost everyone is raising these concerns and urging the government to exercise caution in implementing these changes.

That sex education does not work perfectly in all schools today is not so strange. But it is difficult to know what effects the change made in 2022, which is quite recently, is having. We have not seen the full effect of it yet. Therefore, I mean that it is somewhat of an experiment to completely change this again already, after the positive change that occurred in 2022 and which the Children's Ombudsman refers to and considers good. Now the government chooses to tear it up only three years later. But what the effect of that will be and how good it can become, we cannot yet determine fully.

An example raised by one of the referral bodies is the Public Health Agency's investigation Ungkab, where a difference can be seen between 2015 and 2023. In 2015, most young people state that their primary source of information about sexuality is the internet. In 2023, more young people state that the primary source is school. Again: too little time has passed for one to truly be able to speak with certainty. But it has also definitely been too short a time to say that the change that occurred in 2022 was not good and that the government should therefore undo it. I want to again urge the government to reflect.

I also wanted to say something about the report that Rädda Barnen highlighted, but it has already been raised in the debate. I will remind of it. It says much the same thing as MUCF's report and as RFSL's and RFSL Ungdom's reports and reporting on what is happening in the schools.

Lastly, I want to point out that there are larger problems in our social debate that stem from the same government base that the minister comes from. It has been put forward by the Sverigedemokraterna that they want to tear up the hate speech legislation. The Kristdemokraterna have put forward the view that they want to tear up the gender identity law, exactly how is unclear.

It is also such things that affect the public debate and create insecurity. I wonder if the Minister has any plans to comment in some other way that can contribute to creating greater security.

(Applause)

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

Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Let me be incredibly clear. Now that we are developing the new curricula, sex education will receive a significantly stronger role in the teaching. That is how it will be. I will not present a proposal where sex education does not receive a significantly stronger role in the teaching.

It will mean that it will be clearer what students are to learn and make the teaching much more equal across the whole country. One might think that it is the wrong thing to do, Mr. Speaker. I think it is the right thing to do to achieve equality across the whole country and ensure that it is not optional.

It is about ensuring that all students get the same opportunities and learn what they need to learn, and that it is clear who is to take responsibility for it and in which curricula it should be included. I do not think I can be any clearer than that. We will not present a proposal that does not involve a strengthening of the role of sex education in teaching.

There are absolutely different parties expressing themselves on different issues. But what we have decided on is fixed. There is nothing that can change that.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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