The number of domestic partnerships has significantly increased in the recentdecades in the Nordic countries, which has led to a growing need for regulationto protect the rights of the cohabitants. Sweden and Norway have similar socialdevelopment regarding domestic partnerships, but the countries have chosen differentapproaches to regulate them. In Swedish law, a generally applicable definitionof cohabitants is used, while Norway has chosen to apply a more dynamicconcept of cohabitation where the definition varies depending on the legal effectof different regulations. This essay aims to highlight and analyze the definitionof cohabitation in Swedish and Norwegian law and the benefits and drawbackswith the two approaches, as well as to examine the similarities, differences andconsequences of the two. In Sweden, cohabitation is regulated in the Cohabitation Act (sambolagen). Thelaw defines cohabitants as two parties who permanently live together in a couplerelationship and have a joint household. In Norwegian law on the other hand, adynamic definition of cohabitants is used and varies depending on the specific legislation. In some legislation, it requires a marriage-like relationship, while in other legislations there can be two parties or more with a sharing household andlived together for a certain amount of time but without a requirement of a marriage-like relationship. There are both benefits and challenges with a generally applicable definition ofcohabitation, as in Swedish law, and a more dynamic definition, as in Norwegianlaw. A generally applicable definition promotes clarity and uniformity in the legislation,and it is easier for the public, courts and authorities to understand thecohabitation concept. However, it can result in more exceptions to make themfit a certain legal area, which can lead to confusion and various interpretations. Itcould also lead to a cohabitation definition that is too broad or too narrow. Adynamic definition on the other hand varies depending on the purposes of thelegislation, and allows an adaptability to social development and the differentpurposes of each legislation. However, it becomes more complex for the publicto fully understand various legislations, and it could also become more challengingto establish a uniform legal practice when the definition differs so much. The legislator should ultimately aim for a balance between clarity and adaptability.The author believes that a more dynamic definition of cohabitation is bestsuitable for a society in constant development.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:su-219109 |
| Date | January 2023 |
| Creators | Huhtala, Annifrid |
| Publisher | Stockholms universitet, Juridiska institutionen |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | Swedish |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0022 seconds