The United Nation’s definition of honour based violence (HRV) in 1999 defines women’s exposure of violence related to honour. In Sweden, HRV was regarded as a social problem in the 1990’s, when women were murdered by their close family members. Loss of honour was explained as a reason for the killings. Ever since the beginning of debate in Swedish media, science has noticed the complexity of HRV.   The aim of this study was to examine how Swedish social services and administrative courts constructed honour based violence (HRV) when law of mandatory care of minors is used in court cases. The lawsuits regarded both females and males, in the ages of 10-17 years old. We used a document analysis of thirteen court cases from 2016 regarding 2§ Law of mandatory care of minors (LVU), which is a paragraph of deficiencies in care of youths. We used the keyword Honour related violence when searching for court cases. We could determine that physical violence is constructed as legal issues when it’s explained in detail, fragmented and when the minor was regarded as believable to the administrative court. Psychological violence included the involvement of threats, threats of physical violence and threats of forced marriages, and was all seen as an integrated view on violence. Honour was constructed as an isolation of the youths, limiting their social and leisure time and the children were controlled by their guardians. According to social services and administrative courts, the control was not seen as age appropriate.

This study is a discourse analysis of 15 child protection cases in Sweden, analysing a total of 30 verdicts from both the Court of Administrative Law and the Administrative Court of Appeal. The study’s first aim was to analyse the construction of parenthood and parental abilities in court verdicts concerning the removal of children due to environmental factors according to The Care of Young Persons Special Provisions Act. The second aim of the study was to analyse if a parent’s gender, class, or ethnicity affected the outcome of the courts’ verdict. The results were analysed using Michél Foucault’s theories on discourse and power and Tina Mattsson’s theories on categorization and intersectionality. The study found that parents were characterized by their conceived flaws in parenting in relation to what needs they were deemed as not fulfilling for their children. Those parents were also seen as deviating from the norm. One of the key aspects influencing the court’s verdict was if the parent displayed insight into their perceived problem and showed a willingness to change and cooperate with authorities. The results also showed that verdicts where children were placed into the custody of the social services tended to be based on a child protection paradigm, whereas verdicts where parents could keep custody were based on a child welfare paradigm. Another finding was that mothers were more likely to be seen as primary caregivers than fathers, and therefore more likely to be deemed as unfit parents. A mother’s mental illness was seen as a sign of unfit parenthood. Parents with substance abuse issues were often deemed unreliable as parents. Non-European parents who controlled their children were seen as the most deviant from the norm. Their children were seen as having to choose between either “freedom” or their family. An intersectional analysis showed how social injustices were maintained in the current discourse of child protection through marginalization. Finally, implications for social work were discussed based on the findings of the study.