In recent decades, Sweden has experienced a large increase in the number of migrant adolescents, many of whom arrive with little prior experience of school-based learning (Skolverket, 2016, p. 189). Learning to read and write for the first time, and in an additional language, represents a great challenge to recent migrant adolescents who have little previous experiences of formal schooling. While engaged in the process of developing literacy in a second language, migrant students must also navigate their ways into, or learn to read, a new society (Franker, 2017). Therefore, learning a new language and developing literacy in a new sociocultural environment not only involves learning the grammar, principles of decoding scripts and new vocabulary, but also the ability to engage in new discourses. For example, teenage students may have to learn to talk about the body’s anatomy and functions, as well as subjects related to relationships or sexuality, which might represent taboos to some students. As Alexander (2008) put it: “Learning how to talk fluently and critically about sex and sexuality composes a significant part of becoming literate in our society” (p. 2).

In this investigation, the analyzed interactions concern topics of sexuality and the constitution of families. Such topics might raise questions about heteronormativity, which, according to Cameron and Kulick (2003), can be defined as “those structures, institutions, relations and actions that promote and produce heterosexuality as natural, self-evident, desirable, privileged and necessary” (p. 55). Thus, this ethnographic study combines two fields of research that rarely meet, at least in a Nordic context (Milani et al., 2021); namely, the education of basic literacy in Swedish as a second language and discourses about sexuality.

The aim of this study is to investigate how learning about sexual and gender diversity may enhance recently arrived migrant students’ understanding of different cultural norms, including some that may be considered taboos, in the context of an introductory language course in Sweden. I will argue that this understanding can be enhanced not only through the teaching of tolerance towards others but also through examinations of different practices related to sexuality. Concurrently, this cross-cultural educational context presents challenges and pitfalls that places high demands on teachers when choosing their subject content and their ways to teach it. For instance, teachers need to navigate among discourses related to sexual identity, which are not evident within queer theory: “Rather than affirming sexual identity categories, queer theory questions the need for them. Rather than legitimizing minority sexual identities, queer theory problematizes all sexual identities” (Nelson, 2002, p. 48). Using the concept of sexual identity might actually contribute to the binary opposition that was to be avoided (Nelson, 2002, p. 47). Therefore, teachers’ eagerness to use a pedagogy of inclusion (Nelson, 1999, p. 376) to enhance tolerance towards others might contribute to the dichotomy between heterosexual or gay students. Instead, Nelson advocates a pedagogy of inquiry, which is not aiming to enhance tolerance towards the other, but about analyzing how discursive and cultural practices create heteronormativity: “Whether the intention is to critique these practices or to learn them (or a combination of the two), the task is to investigate the workings of language and culture in order to make them explicit” (Nelson, 1999, p. 389). Thereby, Nelson means that the admittance of differences, and the possibility to investigate them, are crucial for intercultural comprehension (2002, p. 48) and therefore for the possibilities to communicate in a certain society. This claim supports the use of this framework to analyze the education of this cross-cultural context.

This investigation, which is part of a larger study, is designed as an ethnographic case study with empirical data collected in an introductory language class during the 2017 and 2018 school years. The students in this class were adolescents aged between 16 and 19, who had little previous experience of formal schooling. Their classes took place in an inner-city school in a large town in Sweden, which exclusively offers courses for migrant students wishing to attain their elementary school diplomas and develop their Swedish language abilities in order to qualify for admission to high school. I shadowed a group of students as a participant observer for two to three days each week for three to four hours per day, totaling 165 hours over the course of the school year. During observation, I would sit at the back of the classroom taking field notes and audio-recording interactions (totaling 40 hours). I would also move among the students to build researcher–participant rapport. In order to complete the ethnographic observations, I also conducted semi-structured interviews with eight of the students at the end of the school year, either in pairs or individually. These interviews focused on the students’ language and literacy experiences before coming to Sweden and their thoughts on the instruction that I had observed. Data were analyzed in two cycles (Saldaña, 2009). My repeated writing of conceptual memos (Heath & Street, 2008) revealed that discussions about normativity was a recurrent theme in the course as the interactions unfolded during the school year. Consequently, I went through my data in search of examples of this kind of interaction, which I investigated more thoroughly and present in excerpts that seem representative for this education. I also had the opportunity to ask follow-up questions to the teacher about her choices. This study followed the ethical guidelines of The Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet, 2017). Prior to the students’ participation in the study, informed consent was received with help from the Somali tutor. However, it is a complicated task to collect written consent from students whose second language and print literacy is not yet developed, which means that they might depend on the interpreters to understand the implications of participating in the project. Therefore, the collection of consent was organized as an ongoing process (Rogers & Labadie, 2018).

The analysis of the interactions in the classroom shows examples of a pedagogy which, with Nelson’s (2002) terminologies, can be defined as inclusive, advocating tolerance to differences, as well as critical, through analyses of practices linked to sexuality. Although this course raises questions about the students’ possibilities to have an impact on the content of instruction, or to avoid topics that they do not feel comfortable talking about (Alexander, 2009), seven out of eight students in the group reported that this pedagogy contributes to their acquisition of cultural knowledge and the possibility to participate in discourses of the mainstream society (Baynham, 2006; Gee, 2015). Examples from the data illustrate an education that does not seem to aim to change the students’ opinions, but to make them understand new practices that are different from those of their home communities. The education was characterized by an effort to discuss different norms in several domains, without disqualifying the students’ experiences. The teacher does not seem to focus on what the students should think, or at least not explicitly, but on making them understand that we are all different and that we should respect those differences. However, some of the examples in this study also illustrate how the teacher supports some practices before others, such as when she explains how same-sex relations are forbidden by law in some countries, and that she believes that this is wrong. She also emphasizes that it is important for the students not to appear to be homophobic; even if they do not respect different relational practices, they should not express this openly.

Alexander, J. (2008). Literacy, Sexuality, Pedagogy: Theory and Practice for Composition Studies. University Press of Colorado. https://doi.org/doi:10.2307/j.ctt4cgqkw Baynham, M. (2006). Agency and contingency in the language learning of refugees and asylum seekers. Linguistics and Education, 17(1), 24–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2006.08.008 Cameron, D., & Kulick, D. (2003). Language and sexuality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Franker, Q. (2017). Agentskap och handlingsutrymme. In Nyanländas språkutveckling. Skolverket [the Swedish national agency for education]. https://larportalen.skolverket.se/#/modul/2c-nyanlanda/Grundskola/033_nyanlandas-sprakutveckling/del_08/ Gee, J. P. (2015). Social Linguistics and Literacies. Ideology in Discourses (Fifth ed.). Routledge. Heath, S. B., & Street, B. V. (2008). On Ethnography. Approaches to Language and Literacy Research. Teachers College Press. Milani, T. M., Mortensen, K. K., & Levon, E. (2021). At queere flersprogethed og migration [article]. Språk och stil, NF 31(1), 201–229. https://doi.org/10.33063/diva-434156 Nelson, C. D. (1999). Sexual identity in ESL: QueerTheory and Classroom Inquiry. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 371–391. Nelson, C. D. (2002). Why Queer Theory is Useful in Teaching. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 14(2), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1300/J041v14n02_04 Rogers, R., & Labadie, M. (2018). Rereading assent in critical literacy research with young children. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 18(3), 396–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798416675503 Saldaña, J. (2009). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. SAGE Publications Ltd. Skolverket [the Swedish national agency for education]. (2016). Läroplan och kursplaner för grundskolan. Svenska som andraspråk. https://www.skolverket.se/undervisning/grundskolan/laroplan-och-kursplaner-for-grundskolan/tidigare-kursplaner-ar-2000-2011-for-grundskolan Vetenskapsrådet [Swedish research council]. (2017). God Forskningssed. Vetenskapsrådet.