The purpose of this study is, based on Schlytter's previous finding of gender normative assessments and the critique of the props some other socially degrading behaviour as vague and open to normative interpretations, examine whether gender differences remain in the current assessments from administrative courts and also study any differences in how it is applied with regards to different regions. To do this, we have used a qualitative content analysis of 51 judgments completed during November 2020 from the administrative courts of Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö and examine how these use the props some other socially destructive behaviour in the assessment of girls and boys in need of compulsory care. The conclusion is that these differences in how behaviour is assessed as problematic or not based on gender, seem to still be prominent in today's courts, but not as prominent. Some behaviours are described differently for girls and boys, whereas girls are described as vulnerable and boys as both vulnerable and as potential perpetrators. The result of the study also shows some regional differences between courts in assessment depending on gender. Overall these findings would need further looking into through additional studies.