During the first half of the 20th century, the Roma’s existence in Sweden could be described in media as the “Gypsy torment”. As a problem, in need to be solved. In both Sweden and Norway, many laws have been enacted through time to solve this “problem”. Among them, the most known, and maybe the most inhumane ones, are the laws about sterilisation. The idea of sterilising the own population can be traced back to the studies of racial biology that were conducted in Scandinavia at the time and was a popular subject in the public debate. Some groups of society were seen as a threat to public health since they were believed to pass on inferior genetic predispositions. 

In official Swedish documents of the 20th century, including laws, one may find the term “dull-minded” (sinnesslö). A similar word was used in Norway: “inferior” (mindreverdig). In both cases, the words described people who, in one way or another, were not considered suitable to have children. The word often regarded people with learning difficulties, disabilities or mental illness. Nevertheless, the sterilised were often women and transgender people, and among all of them, a big part was Roma. Hence, the words “dull-minded”, and “inferior”, were used flippantly, and it was up to the Swedish and Norwegian authorities to decide who fell under the category and not. 

The Government’s behaviour towards the Roma population has looked similar in Sweden and Norway, although regarding the laws on sterilisation, Norway was somewhat more extreme. In the Norwegian law, which was also implemented in 1934, it is expressed that doctors, social workers and other authorities have the right to use force against the person in question if they do not agree with being sterilised. 

One should also not forget that Norway was occupied under Nazi rule between 1940 and 1945. This resulted in an even stricter law about sterilisation in 1942, with an emphasis on the compulsion. The racial biological motive behind the law was expressed clearly in the Norwegian Nazi regime; there was a willingness to hinder the population from “hereditary degeneration”. 

In Norway, over 500 Roma people were sterilised from 1934-1977, and the majority of the sterilisations took place during the Nazi regime. Although, after the Second World War ended in 1945, the forced sterilisations proceeded for thirty-two more years, but according to the law that was implemented before the Nazi occupation. The Nazis were not the only people in Norway who promoted radical methods of forced sterilisation. In 1946, the organization “Norwegian Mission among the Homeless” (Norsk misjon blant hjemløse) suggested sterilisation of children and youths and promoted a radicalisation of the law from 1934, although without response from the government. 

In Sweden, the number of sterilised Roma people is not as clear as in Norway. It has been estimated that around 450-500 Roma people were sterilised, but it is difficult to say with certainty since the Swedish law about sterilisation was never explicitly aimed at the Roma population. Therefore, many conclusions about forced sterilisation have been drawn based on testimonies from the Roma people who were affected by the law, or from their relatives. And there is no shortage of testimonies. 

On March 25, 2014, the Swedish government published a white paper about the government’s treatment of the Roma population through time. One of the people who shared her family’s experiences in the white paper is the previous EU parliamentarian (MEP) Soraya Post. She explains that her mother, after having had Post and her brother, was pregnant with a third child. According to Post, Swedish authorities threatened her mother to separate her from her children if she would not agree to an abortion and sterilisation. One can find many similar stories from both Roma and non-Roma people from the whole of Norway and Sweden.

Aside from transgender people, who in the 2010s in Scandinavia still had to go through with sterilisation in order to get their sex change surgery, the forced sterilisation proceeded to take place until 1976 in Sweden and 1977 in Norway, which still is a remarkably long time. The Scandinavian countries were standing out from the rest of Europe regarding their sterilisation laws, and the duration of their laws. What made this seem acceptable? One of the reasons is, as stated, the widespread influence of racial biology in these countries, but there might also be other reasons. 

In 1997, journalist Maciej Zaremba opened the topic of forced sterilisation, which led to a long-running debate in the Swedish media. Zaremba claimed that a basis for the sterilisation policies was the social democratic ideology that had dominated the region for a long time. When Swedish parliamentarians discussed the law before it was voted through, one of the arguments for it was that it would lower the costs of the government. If fewer “dull-minded” people were born, fewer people would need help from the welfare system. Many considered Zaremba’s statement about social democracy reasonable, but it was also criticized. When the laws were implemented in Sweden, there was no big difference in influence from the Social Democratic Party (Socialdemokraterna), and the Right Party (Högerpartiet, today known as Moderaterna). The law was encouraged and voted for by both sides, so how could only one party be held accountable for the actions of the whole parliament?

Even if the theory of Zaremba is not true, it has always been common for poor people to be viewed as threats to society rather than in need of support from society. Many of the people who were targeted by the sterilisation laws were poor and would have had difficulties supporting their children without help from the welfare system. Hence, one could view it as an ever-so-brutal way of trying to get rid of poverty.

No matter the reason, it should never be a decision made by anybody else than the person receiving the treatment. To sterilise people against their expressed wish is an offence against that individual’s human right over their own body and future. It is an unacceptable violation, without any justifications. The sterilised person gets their life dominated and dictated by the State they live in. 

The systematic forced sterilisations in Scandinavia proceeded for decades after the Second World War, and in the Scandinavian democracies, sterilisation was used as a way to try to minimise some groups of the population. Either because they did not fit into society's norms or in the Government budget, or because they had the wrong shape of their skull or colour of their skin. It is the opposite of an inclusive society and a symptom of a lack of respect for human worth.  

The Swedish government tried to compensate for their previous actions by paying out an indemnity. The equivalent of approximately 15 000 Euro could be paid out to anyone who had been sterilised against their will or on somebody else’s initiative. Even though it does not make up for the past, it might be a promising sign for a future where respect for everybody’s freedom over their own body is seen as a given principle.