Response to interpellation 2025/26:193 on the prioritization in the justice chain regarding violence against women

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Lars Isacsson has asked me whether I consider today's prioritization at the police, prosecutor's offices, and courts sufficiently reflects the severity of violence against women and domestic violence, and if not, what changes are needed. Lars Isacsson has also asked me what measures I intend to take to ensure that cases with repeated reports of violence are not closed or left pending so that the victim is left without protection.

Let me begin by thanking Lars Isacsson for the opportunity to discuss these important issues today. Sweden shall be a country where everyone can live their lives in freedom and security. Men's violence against women and honor-related violence and oppression must be fought with full force.

A prerequisite for it to be done and for cases not to be left lying is, of course, that the authorities have the resources required. That is why we are making record-breaking investments in the police during this and during coming years. It is about investing in a reorganization of the justice policy in large, but within that there is to the highest degree the prioritization of sharpened measures against men's violence against women and honor-related violence and oppression.

The government is clear in its relationship with the authorities. There are, for example, clear mandates to the Swedish Police Authority, the Swedish Prosecution Authority, the Prison and Probation Service, and the National Board of Health and Welfare in order to strengthen the operational capacity to prevent the crime that we are now talking about.

We have also decided on an action program to prevent and combat, among other things, men's violence against women, violence in close relationships, and honor-related violence. It involves a broad approach with measures at national, regional, and local levels.

The government has also taken a number of central measures to ensure that women exposed to violence have access to protection both during and after violent relationships. This includes, for example, tightenings of the legislation regarding restraining orders so that restraining orders can be used more often and cover larger geographical areas, such as an entire municipality.

We have also strengthened the rental protection for women who are victims of violence. It is the person who commits violence against a close relative who shall lose the contract, not the woman who is the victim of violence.

We have also introduced a new regulatory framework for protected housing, which entails improved protection and support for those who are exposed to violence.

To this is added the major change on December 1 with removed confidentiality barriers and a new confidentiality-breaking provision. It is about different actors getting better opportunities to share information with one another. We know that, for example, social services or health and medical care have often come into contact with both victims of and perpetrators of crimes of violence in close relationships. But when the information does not reach the police, the police do not have the possibility to intervene to prevent and stop the crime from occurring.

To this is added now all changes and reforms in the criminal law area. It is about shifting the focus from the perpetrator to the crime victim and societal protection.

As late as in October, we decided on a referral to the Council on Legislation – the Council on Legislation has responded that they are continuing to work on this now. It concerns a completely new, indeterminate sentence called security detention and is aimed, among other things, at persons who commit serious sexual offenses and violent crimes and have a high risk of recidivism.

Earlier this month, we also decided on a referral to the Council on Legislation with a proposal to criminalize psychological violence.

We received the report from the large Penal Reform Commission last year (SOU 2025:66) and are now working on proposals to tighten the penalties for aggravated assault and aggravated rape. It also concerns that repeated offending of such a nature should be able to lead to life imprisonment even if life imprisonment is not included as a penalty in the sentencing scale for the individual crime.

Since December 1, innocence checks, innocence certificates, and innocence interventions are also finally criminalized. This means that we have taken further steps to protect the personal integrity of girls and women and to counter honor-related violence and oppression.

I can conclude overall that the problems we are talking about here truly belong to our society's greatest latent, ongoing failures. It is incredibly important that when we now make major changes and major investments in crime policy, largely to tackle organized crime, we also create room for action to take care of other serious crime, not least that which affects women, including women and girls who are exposed to honor-related violence and oppression. It is a matter of safety, freedom, and justice.

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

Lars Isacsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer for the answer and for the seriousness in the answer and in the question! I think the answer is good in large parts, so I intend to concentrate on the parts where I think we can do better.

In connection with Orange Day a few weeks ago, we were reminded, as every year, of what should actually be obvious: Men's violence against women is not an abstract societal issue, but it is about women's lives and safety.

In connection with this, I was contacted by the Social Democratic Women's Association in Borlänge, who reacted strongly to a case that was highlighted in P4 Dalarna. It concerned a case where a woman was murdered after a long period of documented and reported instances of assault, and where much in the chain of justice was lacking. It is a story that, unfortunately, is not unique but which illustrates what is at stake when the system fails to act in time. In Dalarna, as in the rest of Sweden, we have seen several examples where repeated alarms about violence have not led to sufficiently rapid measures, despite known risk factors. It is in these situations that the rule of law's priorities are tested in practice.

Madam Speaker! I share the Minister of Justice's view on the importance of investments in the justice system, increased resources and better cooperation, as well as the view that legislative measures are necessary. We agree that violence against women by men shall be combated with full force.

But at the same time, we must acknowledge that it is not enough that we make these prioritizations and invest all these resources. Despite the investments, we still see cases that are left lying, even though repeated warning signals are being issued.

Madam Speaker! My question to the Minister is: How is the seriousness of violence against women reflected in the actual order of priorities among the police, prosecutors, and courts?

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for that we are once again given the opportunity to discuss this extremely important issue!

I signed up for this debate, but not because I have particularly followed the case in Borlänge; there are other cases that one can always refer to. I think this is interesting. In the interpellation, the question is asked as to what priorities the police have. Are we making the right priorities? What are the right priorities? I would like to problematize this a bit now that I have heard the minister's answer.

It is clear that it is as the interpellor and the minister said, that large economic investments are being made in the justice system in the budget. You are strengthening the operational cooperation, and that is good. It is mentioned that a new action program will be developed to prevent and combat. Then we begin to get into the fact that this perhaps is not about how the police prioritize in the short term and whether they prioritize correctly.

The Minister takes the opportunity to mention tightened contact ban legislation, which is good in a way. But it has nothing to do directly with the police's priorities. One strengthens the protection in the rental housing law – I have exactly the same comment there.

The Minister mentions a new regulatory framework for protected housing which entails improved protection and support for those exposed to violence, which I almost find a bit odd. The clear signals are that the regulation is starting to go a bit wrong.

Exchanging information is very important, and criminalizing psychological violence is wise.

I have during the autumn and during this year written down which communications and which measures we have received information about in our inbox. I shall mention some of them.

An email arrived stating that the government is working on strengthened protection for threatened persons. When one looks a bit more at the details and which threatened persons it concerns, one sees that it, which is naturally very good, concerns children and young people who are crime victims or witnesses or have connections to criminal networks and who risk being subjected to threats and violence. Of course, it is super good that they are taken care of, but it is them this is directed towards.

One is also investing in a national support program for defectors – an important piece of the puzzle in the work against criminals. It is therefore about crime victims within defector activities. It is written that one shall work with nationally coordinated support for the work with defectors from organized crime. It concerns the need for health and medical care, the need for mental health care, and methods to promote effective cooperation between authorities to take care of defectors. These are exactly the same needs that women who need to leave a violent relationship have.

A third assignment I noted is a new national function that shall coordinate the support for certain crime victims who have been affected by terrorism or other serious crime where the residence has been destroyed. They shall then receive coordinated support, which is of course also enormously important. I know where these assignments originate from and that this has been a problem. But as a woman exposed to violence, you can suddenly find yourself without a home or have your home destroyed by the person you have a relationship with.

This is possibly somewhat challenging, but it is a way to put it into perspective and compare crime victims with crime victims. All crime victims are in incredibly great need of the support mentioned in all three areas that I have rattled off. Women exposed to violence lack this today. The Minister is welcome to comment on that.

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

Sanna Backeskog (S)

Madam Speaker! Many thanks to Lars Isacsson for an incredibly important interpellation! It is vital, in fact. Thanks also to the Minister for Justice, who is here and debating the issue with us! I thank him for his commitment to the issue.

The case in Borlänge, which Lars Isacsson mentions in his interpellation, truly demonstrates the severity of the issue. It is completely inconceivable reading how a known, ruthless woman-beater can be at large for a year and a half awaiting legal proceedings and how a mother is murdered by him during that time. It is bottomless!

From the Minister for Justice's response, we can hear about the measures the government is taking regarding men's violence against women. It is resource allocation and strengthened criminal law protection. Great! I am very happy that the government has moved forward with our investigations on tightened restraining order legislation and criminal liability for innocence checks, certificates of innocence, and innocence interventions. I am also happy that the Riksdag has been able to stand behind the bills.

I am glad that the bill on psychological violence is underway. We also welcome the proposal on security sentences. Criminal law improvements are necessary in this area. It is about the crime victim's right to redress, about the necessary societal protection from a perpetrator, about a hopefully normalizing effect and, of course, about the woman's right to a life in freedom and safety.

At the same time, I also hear about another picture that is more concerning. The Minister for Justice also took up part of this. Socialstyrelsen's investigations into injuries and deaths show that several murders and acts of gross violence against women in close relationships could have been prevented. Most often, the vulnerability to violence was known before the crimes were committed. Socialstyrelsen points out several shortcomings in the work of both social services, health and medical care, and the police.

Grevio has also identified serious deficiencies regarding Sweden's work against men's violence against women. This includes, among other things, insufficient support and poor governance regarding the important cooperation at the local operational level. Here we hear that measures are now underway.

I can warmly recommend a visit to Trygghetens hus in Bollnäs, where the police and social services join forces for active work to prevent, detect, and stop violence in close relationships.

We also hear criticism regarding the marketization of protected housing and against a language that is too gender-neutral, which misses the understanding of the gender power structure, which is so crucial when it comes to equality work in general and men's violence against women specifically. We can also read about a too low level of knowledge regarding men's violence against women within the justice system, social services, and health and medical care.

I am not entirely surprised by the criticism. I also experience that it aligns with what one hears when visiting women's shelters all over the country. Just this matter regarding the level of knowledge, I am quite often asked how the government handles, so I thought I would convey those questions further. I am told that it well cannot be a free choice to work with further education on how men's violence against women works. These are such specific phenomena that, besides the purely physical violence, are about gender, power, and oppression. That requires a special understanding so that the woman can receive the redress and the protection she is entitled to. It requires knowledge that it can be a life-saving urgency.

I would like to hear the Minister for Justice reason a bit regarding what measures the government is taking to increase the level of knowledge within the justice system and other authorities regarding men's violence against women. It is also a matter of prioritization.

(Applause)

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank everyone who is now contributing to the debate on these very pressing issues today. I think it is very easy to agree with the problem picture described by everyone participating in the discussion.

At the end, Sanna Backeskog referred to the National Board of Health and Welfare and studies that have been conducted there. That picture is also confirmed by the police's own studies.

Let me return to the police, which was the subject of Lars Isacsson's original question. From our side, we steer in a number of different ways in these matters – it is in terms of regulatory letters, follow-ups, and other things.

The core of the exchange that exists between the government and the police is the police's own initiated Operation Beta, which has been a way to, so to speak, break down these issues on a different level and work nationally and collectively to gather experience. The police have themselves combed through the cases where it has unfortunately become the case that a woman has ultimately been murdered by a man – a cohabitant, an ex, or whatever it is. They have gone through the cases retrospectively and asked themselves what could have been done to prevent it from going that far and when it could have been done. The patterns that emerge are unfortunately troubling for a long line of actors in society.

I would like to bring up Just Operation Beta as something very promising. It is an expression of a very high level of ambition to break patterns and do things in a different way than before.

We are now discussing the follow-up of the internal review – I call it the internal review, but it was fundamentally an operation – because cases have been reviewed where one has been involved oneself. There, the police point out a number of areas where they shall change their way of working to become more efficient, specifically when it comes to preventing and deterring these crimes.

Let me also acknowledge what was said here regarding knowledge-enhancing measures. A very important conclusion in the police's work is that one must work extensively with knowledge enhancement regarding all the different parts of the police that are involved in different ways in the handling of such cases – from the police officer who is in outer service and perhaps first arrives at an apartment where assault is suspected to be occurring, to the investigator who, at the end of the handling, is to investigate the crime.

The importance of prevention is highlighted. The crime clearance rate when it comes to these murders is one hundred percent, so that is not the problem. The problem is that they are occurring.

The police themselves point out that one must work much more intensively with identifying risk and vulnerability factors, have much more focus on the men who are identified as potential perpetrators and get much closer to them at a much earlier stage. One must have more focus on those individuals in the work with risk factors and vulnerabilities. One needs to use the entire period of detention, both to investigate crimes and to take various preventive measures.

People speak about the importance of appointing a victim's counsel at an early stage to ensure that the crime victim, i.e., the person subjected to violence, receives the support required on a personal level and can also contribute to an investigation in a better way than today.

Finally, it is about – it becomes a bit of the magic words at the end, but it is absolutely crucial – the realization that information exists in our system that could prevent the crimes. That realization is in itself quite striking.

Then the reasonable question is: How are those who have the opportunity to prevent and preclude these crimes to obtain that information? Then I will return to the secrecy relaxations and the torn-down secrecy barriers. It is a structural change that will enable this. But I also believe that to a high degree, a cultural change is required if different actors are truly to step in and share information so that the police and others can contribute to preventing and precluding this violence.

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

Lars Isacsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Once again, thanks to the Minister for Justice for the answer! I thought I would start by reflecting a bit on the answer from the Minister for Justice.

We received a report from the police's oversight council, where they had spoken about men's violence against women. It was very gratifying to get a part of the picture that the Minister for Justice has of the level of ambition and how one works preventatively. Many lives have also been saved by identifying risk persons.

What I am asking about here are the cases that fall between the cracks. Many parts work well, but the whole is not good enough.

The Minister of Justice emphasizes in his response the importance of the chain of justice holding together. It is a completely decisive starting point. But we must therefore also say that even if we become better, we must become even better. We must talk about what happens when the chain of justice does not hold together.

Rule of law is not just about sentencing scales, new criminal classifications, or longer penalties. When it comes to men's violence against women, it is very much about the speed of the process. That is also rule of law. For those living with threats and violence, time is often the most decisive factor. When a preliminary investigation drags on, a prosecutor's decision is delayed, or a case is not given priority, there is a risk that protection will be missing even though the system is formally functioning.

Today, prioritization occurs in several stages – with the police, the prosecutor, and the court – but no single stage seems to bear a collective responsibility for the whole.

Madam Speaker! I want to ask the Minister for Justice: Who is responsible when the justice chain, despite resources and reforms, clearly fails to protect women living with violence in close relationships?

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I shall clarify my possibly somewhat rambling previous contribution. My point was that the police prioritize the work against men's violence against women. We may have opinions on whether they prioritize correctly or not. In this assembly, we make decisions on a budget, so that they have the means to work with, and the government directs the work via the channels that exist.

We have all said here that the measures the Minister mentions are very good in the large whole. But there is something missing, and what is missing is what the government is working on at hand and what I have received in my inbox.

What does the Minister think it signals to victims of violence against women when, in a short period of time, three assignments are launched concerning better care for crime victims, but where the category of crime victims "vulnerable women" is not included? The Minister and the government nevertheless say that they have shifted the focus in crime policy and that they have the crime victim's perspective.

I will be very concrete. I believe we have discussed this before, and I return to it very often. When will a distinct and good exit program for women who are victims of male violence arrive? When will those women receive the same support as that which I have exemplified regarding the investigations the government has initiated concerning financial support, relocation, work, education, new clothes, new insurance, and healthcare? It is such support that is offered, for example, in the program for which there is a mandate and which concerns exit activities for young people in crime.

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

Sanna Backeskog (S)

Madam Speaker! I want to emphasize that I also appreciate the work that I see the police are now doing. I hope that sufficient time and resources are provided to prioritize that issue, because the most dangerous place for women in Sweden today is the home. We have heard the Justice Minister's party colleague, Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson, comment in the media that there are displacement effects occurring regarding the work against men's violence against women. It is very serious.

Regarding that, I have a concrete question about priorities. Yesterday, the government's communication "Account of the use of secret coercive measures during 2024" arrived in my inbox. There, the government states that the authorities' use of secret coercive measures during 2024 has been a purposeful and necessary instrument in crime fighting.

The Minister for Justice may correct me if I am wrong, but my impression is that secret coercive measures are not used at all to the same extent when the suspicions concern a ruthless perpetrator committing violence in a close relationship as when it concerns other types of crime, for example, organized crime and gang crime.

At the same time, statements are heard from time to time that it is difficult to investigate men's violence against women. The woman may not dare to report and testify, and if she does, she may withdraw her report and back down from what she previously told. It is clear that that risk exists. It is clear that she is afraid. She may be terrified that he might even kill her. Maybe she is afraid that a report will be interpreted as difficulties in cooperation during a custody dispute and that she will lose custody. And maybe it is such that the violence and oppression have gone on for so long that it has become normalized.

Madam Speaker! I think that preventive measures and secret measures could be appropriate tools, which already exist in the toolbox and which have been highlighted as crucial in certain criminal investigations. How does the Minister for Justice reason regarding that?

(Applause)

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! I will spend these minutes answering some specific questions and then summarize at the end.

First, it concerns the issues of responsibility. Fundamentally, the responsibility must still be placed on each of the authorities that have a clear mandate to work purposefully to prevent and combat men's violence against women, which have been allocated financial resources to do that job and which, in the legislation and through mandates, are required to work closely with other actors needed in order to be able to achieve the results one wants.

In the end of all this, of course, the government has a responsibility to ensure that the authorities actually do the job – to follow up on this and govern in such a way that it also happens in reality. When I point to the authorities and their responsibility, it is not an expression that I do not see the government's responsibility in this. I believe that everyone must take their share of the responsibility in order to move the positions forward significantly.

Then it concerns Helena Vilhemsson's question about signals to crime victims. If I understand the whole thing correctly, that question refers to the extra investment that has been made in relation to crime victims affected by explosions or acts of terrorism. The Crime Victim Authority has been tasked to, so to speak, build up such a function.

Then I just want to say in 30 seconds: Why are we doing this? Yes, because we have seen situations, for example in Hässelby, where explosions have had enormous consequences. Atypical injuries have been created for crime victims that our existing system has not been rigged to handle – regardless of whether it concerns the municipality's crime victim support, the Crime Victim Authority's crime victim support or, for that matter, the insurance companies' handling of the issues. There I know that other parties in the Riksdag share our view. It is not about turning down the level of ambition when it comes to the general support for crime victims. There we are also increasing. It is about resource allocation and about changed rules. For example, as a crime victim, one should not have to pursue one's damages and one's compensation for violation from the perpetrator.

Everything we are now doing on the broad front is, of course, incredibly important. But we have seen that crime victims have suffered very atypical injuries when our system has been completely vulnerable. Then we must meet that specific need. I believe it has a very strong anchoring among the citizens. I have been very clear in underlining this. It is not about downgrading any other crime victim – for this type of crime or any other crime. It is just about that our social contract must also be able to handle the type of terror-like violence that we, unfortunately, see far too many examples of.

Then I want, as I said, to highlight everything we are now doing to strengthen crime victims in other respects. It is incredibly central, and it shall in particular or in any case at least include women who are affected by men's violence.

When it comes to secret coercive measures, I just want to say: What we can do is to ensure that the sentencing scales are such for this type of crime that it is permitted and possible to use secret coercive measures in law enforcement, and that is what we do. Then we follow up on the use of coercive measures in relation to the authority and ensure that coercive measures are used to prosecute even this type of crime.

Now I heard Sanna Backeskog ask the question. I have also seen that other actors are wondering to what extent this legal space is used. It is a legitimate question. I am happy to follow up on this further. But it has been important for us as a government to ensure that the most severe violence, for example the most severe abuses, affecting women also have penalty levels that make it permissible and legal to use secret coercive measures.

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

Lars Isacsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to the Minister of Justice and the fellow debaters, members Sanna Backeskog and Helena Vilhelmsson, for your knowledge and your commitment to this issue!

I shall comment on the Minister for Justice's response. Something that I have come back to before when we have debated the question of responsibility is that I think there should be better opportunities for governments to govern. I think I see a deficiency in the question of how one can govern.

Perhaps the greatest challenge in the work against men's violence against women is not a lack of insight or ambition. The problem is rather the gap between what we say and what happens in the legal process. We have legislation, we have reforms, and we have increased resources. Yet, time and again, we see how women live with threats for a long time, how reports do not lead to sufficiently swift actions, and how repeated warning signs are not caught in time. When the legal process drags on, the violence can escalate with devastating consequences.

Men's violence against women destroys society and destroys families. It threatens women's lives, kills women and affects the development of violence for generations. Much of what is being done today is good, but we must also become better.

I would therefore like to thank the Minister for Justice for the debate and also for this year's other debates. I also take the opportunity to wish a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, so we will hear from each other again on the other side!

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to Lars Isacsson and fellow debaters for the opportunity to discuss these extremely pressing issues today!

If I am to conclude by emphasizing something, I would like to say that we are now in a situation where I perceive that different actors who can influence this have moved toward the same understanding of the problem. One such cornerstone is the realization that the crime clearance rate is 100 percent.

Now it is about preventing and deterring this crime, and that requires every individual actor to make a shift within the framework of their work. I have, for example, mentioned the police's extensive shift based on a very thorough internal audit of their way of working.

I want to conclude by making a point about the interaction between different actors. Collaboration is a bit of a bureaucratic word that is heard on both the right and the left, but here all actors point to the importance of a very operational collaboration, a very concrete interaction, when one is to handle risks concerning persons who, from a potential point of view, are very dangerous.

A very important change that we have discussed very much in light of organized crime, namely the removed confidentiality barriers, now provides clear legal support and in some respects even obligations to share information between different actors. I believe that it is a key issue, because we know that somewhere in the system, in almost every case, there is information about both victims and perpetrators that makes one realize that if we do nothing, something terrible will happen.

Now it is about ensuring that everyone who can influence the situation receives that information and does their part to ensure that women who today become victims of devastating and sometimes deadly violence are not followed by others who are struck by the same fate.

With this, I also wish you a Merry Christmas and thank you for many fine exchanges during this year! I look forward to a continuation of the new.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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