This paper takes its starting point in the fact that the Convention on the rights of the child (CRC) becamenational law in Sweden 2020.  At the same time, focusing on rights in education is nothing new, and must be understood in the light of a political development over time. After the Second World War the idea of education as a citizenship right became a critical issue in the restructuring of Western democratic school systems. The growing tendency to view and discuss education through a perspective of rights has, however, led to tensions between different perspectives on rights (cf. Bobbio 1996). Focusing on children’s rights, it has for example been demonstrated that there are tensions between different views on children’s rights and parents’ rights (cf. Englund 2010, Quennerstedt 2009). That there are tensions within and between different discourses on rights is a central starting point for this paper.

In Sweden, the Convention on the rights of the child was ratified in 1990 and has since then been an acknowledged perspective in education. However, in 2020 the status of the CRC changed, as it was incorporated into national law (SFS 2018:1197). In the debate preceding the decision, there were those arguing both for and against this change. What is clear, however, is that we still know far too little about how the CRC is enacted as national law. In a wider perspective, the increase and changed character in the use of juridical regulations has, in Swedish education as well as in other countries and areas, been termed as juridification (Rosén et al, 2021; also see Blichner & Molander 2008; Murphy, 2021; Novak, 2017). The rather limited research available so far has demonstrated that juridification has led to changes in the descriptions of teachers’ roles (Bergh & Arneback, 2016) and uncertainty for headmasters and teachers’ on how to act (Lindgren et al 2021). But what in addition has been reported, is that the use of legislation also can work as a support for teachers in their professional work (Karseth & Møller, 2020).

A central starting point for this paper is that juridification of and in education (Rosén et al, 2021) cannot be seen as good or bad per se. Instead, we need to study the processes that follow from different laws, to contribute knowledge of importance for further actions on different levels (in legalisation and enactments of laws). As several sociologist of laws has argued (Habermas, 1987; Honneth 2015), there is on one hand a need of laws to regulate a fair democratic society, but on the other hand a risk that an overuse of laws can lead to instrumentalized actions and processes.

With juridification as an overriding knowledge interest, the aim of this paper is to analyse how the CRC is enacted by civil servants at three Swedish national school authorities after it became national law, and to discuss some implications that follow with different interpretations. This is done by answering the following research questions:

a)       What different discourses about the Convention on the Rights of the Child are enacted by civil servants at national school authorities?

b)      What tensions appear within and between these discourses and what possible consequences can follow with different interpretations and usages?

This paper is a part of a research project studying what happens with education in Sweden when the Convention on the rights of the child has become national law. Inline with the theme of ECER-conference, the project group is aiming for diversity in perspectives. By establishing a collaboration between researchers in pedagogy and jurisprudence (called JURED) we study relationships between juridification and education.

The paper is based on interviews with fourteen civil servants working at three national school authorities in Sweden (National Agency for Education, National Agency for Special Needs Education and Swedish Schools Inspectorate), information at their websites and text document given to us by the informants. At each authority we have interviewed four-six people working with CRC as leaders or civil servants, with expertise in either law or education. The semi-structured interviews lasted between 60-120 minutes and were conducted by two researchers, one scholar in pedagogy and one scholar in jurisprudence, to ensure a broad competence in the collection of data. When the interviewed civil servants talked about the new juridical framing of CRC in Sweden, it became clear that they relate to different discourses. We therefore turned to discourse analysis, and more specifically to neo-pragmatism (Cherryholmes, 1988), to further analyse the different ways that the new legalisation is enacted (Ball et al. 2012) This methodological approach has enabled analysis on how different uses of language are related to past experiences, expectations on the future and actions in the present. The relation within and between different discourses is not neutral since they occur in a society with power structures and framed by rules. Consequently, the societal conditions that constitute a discursive practice nominate those who can speak with authority and create conditions for what that can be said or not be said. The analysis is done in three steps: 1) In the first step we focus on the language used in our data, by informants and in texts, on how to enact the CRC as national law, 2) secondly, we focus on bridges and tensions that appear within and between different discourses, 3) finally, we discuss possible consequences that follow from these bridges and tensions. In the process of analysis, earlier research and political discussions on children’s rights have been used abductively, with the purpose to relate our collected data to a broader context and thus tensions within and between different discourses on a societal level.

The empirical result is presented as three discourses: CRC as political agenda-setting where the new law has led to increased attention of the CRC at the school authorities, but without problematizing tensions within this political discourse. The CRC is primarily handled as a practical question, more of a given agenda that needs to be followed. CRC as juridical implication of the law, for examples, has led to that decisions at school authorities are done based on the best interest of the child, and that there is a need to implement children’s right to be heard. In this juridical discourse the incorporation of the CRC is often welcomed as important and at the same time declared not to bring any legal novelties. CRC as educational practices where the law has led to new writings in the curriculum and support materials. There are few examples of tension within the educational discourse, with expectations of discussions on what kind of support that are needed from national school authorities to schools on this matter. At a societal level there are several tensions in the discourses, for examples, between different rights, on how to incorporation CRC as national law, and how to enact CRC in education. An important result is that these tensions become quite invisible when the CRC is enacted by civil servants. Rather, the tensions are more between the discourses than within them. Some informants describe that it is hard to understand each other between different professional roles. However, some collaboration between both the authorities and civil servants, trying to bridge different discourses, does take place. Altogether our results points at the importance on further studies on the complex relation between juridification and education, as possible conflicts that if not handled at the national level, eventually will erupt in local authorities and schools.

Ball, S. J., M. Maguire, and A. Braun (2012). How Schools Do Policy: Policy Enactments in Secondary Schools. Routledge. Bergh, A., and E. Arneback (2019). “Juridification of Swedish Education – Changing Conditions for Teachers’ Professional Work.” In Policing Schools: School Violence and the Juridification of Youth. Young People and Learning Processes in School and Everyday Life, edited by J. Lunneblad, (pp. 53-70). Springer. Blichner, L. C., and A. Molander (2008). “Mapping Juridification.” European Law Journal 14 (1): 36–54. Bobbio, N. (1996). The Age of Rights. Polity Press. Cherryholmes, C. (1988). Power and Criticism: Poststructural Investigations in Education. Teachers College Press. Englund, T. (2010). Questioning the parental right to educational authority - arguments for a pluralist public education system. Education Inquiry, 1(3), 235-258. Habermas, J. (1987). The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 2, Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. Beacon Press. Honneth, A. (2015). Freedom’s Right - the Social Foundations of Democratic Life. Columbia University Press. Karseth, B. and J. Møller (2020). Legal Regulation and Professional Discretion in Schools, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 64:2, 195-210. Lindgren, J, A. Hult, S. Carlbaum and C. Segerholm (2021). To See or Not to See: Juridification and Challenges for Teachers in Enacting Policies on Degrading Treatment in Sweden, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 65:6, 1052-1064, Murphy M. (2022). Taking education to account? The limits of law in institutional and professional practice, Journal of Education Policy, 37:1, 1.16. Novak, J. (2019) Juridification of educational spheres: The case of Sweden, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 51:12, 1262-1272 Rosén,M, E. Arneback and A. Bergh (2021) A conceptual framework for understanding juridification of and in education, Journal of Education Policy, 36:6, 822-842. Quennerstedt A. (2009) Balancing the Rights of the Child and the Rights of Parents in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Journal of Human Rights, 8:2, 162-176. United Nation. (1989). Convention of the right of the child. SFS 2018:1197: Lag om Förenta nationernas konvention om barnets rättigheter [Law on United Nation Convention of the right of the child].