No description available.

No description available.

In the autumn of 2022 Sweden stands before a pivotal moment in its migration policy. A new government intends to impose significantly stricter requirements on immigration to the country and thereby adapt the regulatory framework to the minimum level provided by EU law. Yet action towards this adaption was taken already in 2016, when an extended maintenance requirement for family reunification was introduced in Law 2016:752 concerning temporary restrictions on the granting of permanent residence permits for asylum seekers. The requirement meant that a third country national living in Sweden, who wanted a family member to live in the country, had to be able to financially support both themselves and the family member. They would also have to provide a home of sufficient size and standard for them all to live in.  In 2021 the extended resources requirement was introduced as a permanent feature in the Swedish Aliens Act. At that time several referral institutes had advised against this implementation in the preparatory works before the law, raising questions as to whether the requirement would be so strict that it would effectively prevent family reunification and reinforce marginalization. Even the government conceded that the extended resources requirement would affect women and men differently, potentially causing women sponsors to fail to live up to the requirement and women migrants to become more financially dependent on their partners. From this conflict of interests sprung the purpose of this thesis, which is to examine the relation between the extended resources requirement in the Aliens Act and the right to family life for adult sponsors and their adult family members from a gender law perspective.  The thesis finds that the introduction of the extended resources requirement in the Swedish Aliens Act marks a permanent adaption of the provision to a level close to the minimum standard provided in the Family Reunification Directive. According to article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Member States wanting to limit the right to family life need to undertake a proportionality analysis before imposing such restrictions on individuals. For limitations in family reunification to be justified, they thus need be to be duly motivated. While no negative obligation to enable family reunification for Member States can be ascertained through this article, it still ascribes a certain positive duty for Member States to ensure the reunion of families. In this respect the extended resources requirement does not appear to be entirely satisfactory. The implementation of the requirement in 2021 was motivated by a will to adapt the requirement to the minimum level provided in the Family Reunification Directive, to encourage integration and to lower public costs. While the adaption of the requirement to the minimum level provided by EU law seems correctly executed, queries can be raised whether it causes the prohibiting of family reunification to such an extent that it undermines the purpose of the directive. This contention is supported by research suggesting that reuniting with one’s family is a key factor behind immigrants’ motivation to integrate in a society. In this respect, the extended resources requirement does not appear to fully comply with article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.  Research also indicates that women are disproportionally affected by the extended resources requirement. Women sponsors work temporary and insecure jobs to a greater extent than men, and thereby risk failing to comply with the extended resources requirement. Simultaneously, women relatives risk becoming financially dependent on their partners when they immigrate to Sweden and are supported by them from the start, causing these women to stand even further away from the job market and other integrational measures. In its essence, the extended resources requirement enforces existing dichotomies between the state and the individual, the public and the private, notions of “us” and “them” and the inherent meaning of “man” and “woman” that contribute to enforcing gender roles and disintegration. This implies that the requirement does not live up to its proposed integrational effects and subsequently, that the extended resources requirement is not entirely purposeful.