Questioning Fairness in Swedish Asylum Decisions
This article examines Swedish asylum deliberations regarding families with children with severe apathy, a condition where the child gradually loses all bodily function. The paper outlines the political context and medical evidence that has evolved since the beginning of the 2000s. It uses case studies and frequencies drawing from a case file inventory covering 24 families, many with minority belonging. The asylum process, case law and the decision makers’ role in reiterating and interpreting the families’ asylum narratives, is explored, analysed and discussed using discourse analysis and interpreted using intersectional theory. Findings suggests that the asylum narratives are greatly reduced and reformulated in a way that seem detrimental to state obligations towards for example rape victims. Findings also suggest that political persecution should be taken more seriously by Swedish migration authorities. Finally, evidence indicates a need for a feminist perspective, and overall strategy, at authority level that does not discriminate.