In 1963, when the first Swedish Education Act came into force, the act contained 64 sections. Today, the Education Act (SFS 2010:800) consists of approximately 900 sections divided in 31 chapters. This is only a quantitative number, but it indicates that the legal governing over Swedish education has increased dramatically. In the rather limited research available so far, these changes are discussed of in terms of juridification, which in a broad meaning refers to that a situation or an issue that takes on a legal or a changed legal character (Brännström 2009, cf. Habermas 1987; Teubner 1987). What this research shows, is that juridification opens up a variety of tensions and has major impacts that can both enable and hinder educational activities (Bergh & Arneback 2016; Carlbaum 2016; Lindgren et al 2020). One part of the juridification is the increased emphasis on individual rights, which may be described as a general trend in Swedish society. The incorporation of the UN Convention on the rights of the child (CRC) into Swedish national law in 2020 (SFS 2018:1197) is a further step in this direction as it confirms children as right holders. The CRC inspires us to ask important questions on qualitative changes, with a focus on for example content, power and changes in distribution of responsibility between different actors in the education system.

With juridification as the overriding interest of knowledge, the aim with this paper is to identify how the rights of the child have been formulated in national school legislations over the last three decades and to contextualize these in relation to the way the governing of Swedish education has changed during the same time. To fulfill this aim, Curriculum theory provides an overriding theoretical framework as it enables analysis of how different interpretations of rights are interpreted and take shape within and between different educational arenas (Bergh 2010; Englund, Forsberg & Sundberg 2012). However, to fulfill the aim Curriculum theory is complemented with a conceptual framework specifically developed to analyse juridification of and in education (Rosén, Arneback & Bergh 2020).

The empirical time period of interest is from 1990 to present. There are two reasons for this choice. First, Sweden ratified the CRC already in 1990 and incorporated it into national law in 2020. Hence, Sweden has committed to children’s rights during the whole period of time, but the shift from transformation into incorporation took place as late as 2020. Second, since the 1990s, the Swedish school system has been thoroughly reformed, which in previous research has been characterized as a shift from decentralization to recentralization (Bergh & Arneback, 2016). This development entails a reformation of the way the governing is organized, changes of the content of school regulations and the pace in which these changes are decided. .

Two research questions operationalize the aim:

1)      How are the rights of the child regulated in the school legislation between 1990-2023, both with regard to its content and the mandate to decide how this is to be interpreted?

2)      What dimensions of juridification can be distinguished when children’s rights are enacted and how do these relate to general changes in the governing of Swedish education?

The Swedish case and the chosen approach provide an important example with high international relevance. The interest for the complex relation between education and juridification has so far primarily come from Swedish and Norwegian educational researchers (Andenæs & Møller 2016; Bergh & Arneback 2016; Lindgren et al 2020; Novak 2018), but also from some other countries, such as England and the USA (Gibson 2013, Murphy 2020).

To study the relation between education and juridification is methodologically challenging. Previous research has pointed at the necessity to find good empirical examples (Rosén et al 2020). The Swedish parliament’s decision to turn the full CRC into national law provides such an example. Moreover, it is also important to recognize that the legal governing is closely intertwined with other aspects of the governing. A search for a better understanding on the complex relation between juridification and education therefore places demand on openness and the necessity of bring a plurality of perspectives together. To meet these demands, we have found it necessary to bring the two fields of law and education together, which so far has been rare in critical studies of education (Murphy 2020). More concretely, this means that we, researchers in pedagogy and jurisprudence work together and, as a consequence, bring different question to the table. Also the identification and comparison of different aspects of governing the Swedish schools over time require both legal and educational competence. This combination of researchers in a joined research task is unique in the Swedish context. Altogether, the composition of the research group and an understanding of diversity as embedded in dominating discourses and structures that govern education, closely connects this paper to the theme of the conference. The two-step analysis was supported by the theories described above and guided by the two research questions. To fulfill the aim of the study, educational and legal methods were combined. The legal method, used to answer the first research question, requires legal sources, which include the Education Act, the curriculum manifested in government ordinances, preparatory works, case law and different policy documents. To analyse these documents, some delimitations were made. Focus was mainly placed on rights expressed in the CRC, such as the best interest of the child and the right to be heard, but also rights closely connected to the right to education have been relevant, such as the right to support and protection against discrimination and degrading treatment. The legal sources just mentioned were also used to answer the second research question, but then complemented with earlier research and additional policy texts in order to place the interpretations of children’s rights identified in the first analytical step into a broader policy context.

The result of the analysis demonstrates that the emphasis on the rights of the child has increased during the studied period. In 1990 hardly any children’s rights were expressed in Swedish school legislations. Subsequently, children’s rights have gradually been enacted into legislation. This development aligns with a general emphasis in society on individual’s rights. The main starting point was the Child and Student Protection Act (SFS 2006:67) prohibiting discrimination and degrading treatment. This act empowered children by giving them enforceable rights in court. The next milestone is the 2010 Education Act, which apart from transforming the best interest of the child and the right to be heard into Swedish law, holds a number of rights enforceable in courts or similar judicial organs. The decentralization and recentralization of the legal governing of the Swedish school system has oscillated back and forth over time. Prior 1990, there was a high degree of detailed regulation through national school authorities, while the NPM-ideas from the 1990s and onwards, meant a shift to a framework legislation where the details were left to the school providers to decide. Through the 2010 Education Act we are once again facing a detailed way of regulating, but this time mainly in the Education Act, i.e. legislation enacted by the parliament. With a broader perspective on governing, it can be concluded that the identified legal changes are closely intertwined with a number of other trends, such as individualization, marketization and accountability. All these changes, together open up for that the juridification of and in education can lead to a spread of a legal culture and behaviour, even around issues where there, in a strict legal sense, are no regulations. Altogether, the result of this study indicates that further research is needed on the complex relation between juridification and education.

Andenæs, K. & Møller, J. Eds. (2016). Retten i skolen. Mellom Pedagogikk, juss og politikk [Law in Education. Between Pedagogy, Law and Politics]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Bergh, A. & Arneback, E. (2016). Hur villkorar juridifieringen lärarprofessionens arbete med skolans kunskaper och värden? [How does the juridification condition the teaching profession's work with the school's knowledge and values?]. Utbildning & Demokrati 25(1), 11–31. Brännström, L. (2009). Förrättsligande: En studie av rättens risker och möjligheter med fokus på patientens ställning. [Juridification: A Study of the Hazards and Potentials of Law, Focusing on the Legal Position of the Patient in Health Care]. PhD diss. Lund: Lund University. Carlbaum, S. (2016). Do you have a complaint? Promoting individual rights in education. Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration 20(4), 3–2. Englund, T., Forsberg, E. & Sundberg, D. red. (2012). Vad räknas som kunskap? Läroplansteoretiska utsikter och inblickar i lärarutbildning och skola [What Counts as Knowledge? Curriculum Theoretical Prospects and Insights into Teacher Education and School]. Stockholm: Liber. Gibson, H. (2013). Home–school agreements: explaining the growth of ‘juridification’ and contractualism in schools. Oxford Review of Education, 39(6), 780–796. Habermas, J. (1987). The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 2, Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. Translated by McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press. Lindgren, J., Carlbaum, S., Hult, A. & Segerholm, C. (2020). Skolans arbete mot kränkningar – juridifieringens konsekvenser [The school's work against violations – consequences of juridification]. Malmö: Gleerups. Murphy, M. (2020). Taking education to account? The limits of law in institutional and professional practice. Journal of Education Policy, https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939. 2020.1770337 Novak, J. (2018). Juridification of Educational Spheres. The Case of School Inspection. Uppsala: Faculty of Educational Sciences, 13. Rosén, M., Arneback, A. & Bergh, A. (2020). A conceptual framework for understanding juridification of and in education. Journal of Education Policy, DOI:10.1080/02680939. 2020.1777466 Teubner, G. (1987). Juridification. Concepts, aspects, limits, solutions. In G. Teubner, ed. Juridification of Social Spheres: A Comparative Analysis in the Areas of Labor, Corporate, Antitrust and Social Welfare Law, 3–48. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. SFS 2006:67. Lag om förbud mot diskriminering och annan kränkande behandling av barn och elever [Act on prohibition of discrimination and other abusive treatment of children and students]. SFS 2010:800. Skollagen [Education Act]. SFS 2018:1197. Lag om Förenta nationernas konvention om barnets rättigheter [Law on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child].