Keywords: juridification, differentiation, welfare state. Abstract: This paper is guided by the overriding question: Why juridification of education now – and how? In the context of the welfare state, legal means have traditionally been used to solve social problems with the objective of creating just, equal, and democratic societies. However, the other side of the coin is that there is a risk of overregulation and adverse consequences, which potentially can inhibit democratic progress. The increasingly long arm of the law finds itself entangled with other forms of accountability, creating ever-expanding systems of bureaucratic complexity. The relation between juridification and education is now of high relevance for Nordic educational research (Bergh & Arneback, 2016; Lindgren et al. 2021; Molander et al, 2012; Ottesen & Møller, 2016) and becoming more so in the UK (Murphy, 2022). This paper is an early step towards further collaboration between researchers from different countries. Against the backdrop of successive developments and changes in the welfare state the aim of the paper aims to analyze how and to what extent juridification appears in two different countries: Sweden and United Kingdom are chosen as illustrative cases as these two countries, apart from many similarities, also represent different cultures and traditions as well as legal systems. Theoretically, we draw on Niklas Luhmann’s (1984/1995) theory of functional differentiation, Gunther Teubner’s (1987) problematization of juridification and Claus Offe’s work (1984) on welfare state contradictions. Empirical examples have been chosen that characteristically illustrate how for example content and authority are differentiated through juridification. Our preliminary results indicate that juridification of education is closely interwoven with transformations of the welfare state, including general trends towards marketization and the increased emphasis on legally assured human rights. The paper also explores other sources of juridification, including structural changes to systems of bureaucratic governance and institutional differentiation, as well as the increased pressures on legitimation stemming from civil society. To this, our comparative analysis adds further knowledge on the many faces of juridification, with regard to both similarities and differences between countries. For example, in the UK the spread of a litigation culture seems to be more common than in Sweden and the other Nordic countries, while there are similar concerns on pedagogical and educational consequences, such as how increased use of legal means impacts professional discretion.

Bergh, A. & Arneback, E. (2016). Hur villkorar juridifieringen lärarprofessionens arbete med skolans kunskaper och värden? Utbildning & Demokrati 25(1), 11–31. Lindgren, J., Hult, A., Carlbaum, S., & Segerholm, C. (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 Luhmann, N. (1984/1995). Social systems. Stanford University Press. Molander, A., Grimen, H. & Eriksen, EO. (2012). Professional discretion and accountability in the welfare state. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 29(3), 214–230. Murphy M. (2022). Taking education to account? The limits of law in institutional and professional practice, Journal of Education Policy, 37(1), 1–16. Offe, C. (1984). Contradictions of the Welfare State (Edited by John Keane). London: Hutchinson Press. Ottesen, E. & Møller, J. (2016). Organisational routines – the interplay of legal standards and professional discretion. European Educational Research Journal, 15(4), 428–446. 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 (pp. 3–48). Walter de Gruyter.