<p>The main purpose with this essay is to evaluate how the characters of the sexually deviated was discussed during the sexual political debate in the 1960s, and if those apprehensions were reflected in SOU 1976:9 concerning sexual abuse. Furthermore, my prime intention will be to compare the reconstructed historical context, alias the sexual political debate, with the analyzed document, with the purpose to explicate why the anticipated political action weren’t sanctioned and implemented by the parliament. The analysis is carried out through a methodology that retrieves its primal premises from Quentin Skinners theories regarding the history of ideas. My most essential conclusions would be that there in fact existed an equivalence regarding the ideological framework between the radical axioms that was conceived during the sexual political debate and the stipulations that was formulated in the document. Thus, the comparison indicate that SOU 1976:9 was published in a ideological milieu that were in fact contrasting with the ontological premises that supposedly guided the committees intentions.</p>

The main purpose with this essay is to evaluate how the characters of the sexually deviated was discussed during the sexual political debate in the 1960s, and if those apprehensions were reflected in SOU 1976:9 concerning sexual abuse. Furthermore, my prime intention will be to compare the reconstructed historical context, alias the sexual political debate, with the analyzed document, with the purpose to explicate why the anticipated political action weren’t sanctioned and implemented by the parliament. The analysis is carried out through a methodology that retrieves its primal premises from Quentin Skinners theories regarding the history of ideas. My most essential conclusions would be that there in fact existed an equivalence regarding the ideological framework between the radical axioms that was conceived during the sexual political debate and the stipulations that was formulated in the document. Thus, the comparison indicate that SOU 1976:9 was published in a ideological milieu that were in fact contrasting with the ontological premises that supposedly guided the committees intentions.