Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wwcj20
Women & Criminal Justice
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wwcj20
The Nordic Paradox. Professionals’ Discussions
about Gender Equality and Intimate Partner
Violence against Women in Sweden
Maria Wemrell, Sara Stjernlöf, Marisol Lila, Enrique Gracia & Anna-Karin
Ivert
To cite this article: Maria Wemrell, Sara Stjernlöf, Marisol Lila, Enrique Gracia & Anna-Karin Ivert (2021): The Nordic Paradox. Professionals’ Discussions about Gender Equality and Intimate Partner Violence against Women in Sweden, Women & Criminal Justice, DOI: 10.1080/08974454.2021.1905588
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2021.1905588
© 2021 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. Published online: 14 Apr 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 347
View related articles
The Nordic Paradox. Professionals
’ Discussions about Gender
Equality and Intimate Partner Violence against Women
in Sweden
Maria Wemrella,b , Sara Stjernl€ofa, Marisol Lilac , Enrique Graciac , and Anna-Karin Iverta,d
a
Unit for Social Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Malm€o, Sweden;bDepartment of Gender Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden;cDepartment of Social Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain;dDepartment of Criminology, Faculty of Health and Society, Malm€o University, Malm€o, Sweden
ABSTRACT
Intimate partner violence against women (IPVAW) is a global public health issue often assumed to be associated with gender inequality. The so-called Nordic Paradox, the apparently contradictory co-existence of high levels of IPVAW and of gender equality in Nordic countries, has not been adequately explained. This study explores discussions about how this apparent paradox can be understood among 30 IPVAW professionals work-ing in southern Sweden, through a thematic analysis of focus groups and individual and paired interviews. The analysis highlights complexities of gender (in)equality and its links with IPVAW in Sweden, of relevance for the addressing and prevention of IPVAW.
KEYWORDS
Intimate partner violence against women; Nordic Paradox; gender equality; professionals; Sweden
INTRODUCTION
Globally, one-third of all women are estimated to be exposed to intimate partner violence against women (IPVAW) during their lifetime (WHO,2019). While men are also at risk of intimate part-ner violence (IPV), and IPV occurs in LGBTQI relationships, a large share of the IPV burden is “borne by women at the hands of men” (Heise & Garcia-Moreno,2002, p. 89). This has a major impact on women’s physical and mental health (WHO,2013).
It is commonly assumed that gender equality correlates to a lower risk of IPVAW (e.g., Archer, 2006). However, a 2012 survey conducted by the European Union (EU) Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA, 2014) shows that the Nordic countries, despite their leading scores in gender equality (EIGE, 2017, 2019), had among the highest reported lifetime prevalence levels of physical or sexual IPVAW in the EU. In Sweden, 28% of the respondents reported exposure, compared to the EU mean of 22% (FRA, 2014). This apparently contradictory co-existence of high levels of gender equality and of IPVAW found in Sweden and other Nordic countries (FRA,
2014) has been termed the Nordic Paradox (Gracia & Merlo,2016).
Suggested potential explanations for this paradox, presented by Gracia and Merlo (2016), include backlash effects (Flood et al.,2018) or other unanticipated consequences of relatively high gender equality for IPVAW risk, and disproportionally high prevalence levels in some socio-CONTACTMaria Wemrell maria.wemrell@med.lu.se Unit for Social Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Jan Waldenstr€oms gata 35, Malm€o 205 02, Sweden.
ß 2021 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
demographic groups. Gracia and Merlo (2016) also suggest that other characteristics shared by the Nordic countries, such as alcohol consumption patterns, may influence IPVAW prevalence. Discussing these potential explanations, while primarily focusing on Sweden, Wemrell, Lila, et al. (2019) point toward research indicating a disjuncture between advancing gender equality in policy formulation and the public sphere, and practices maintaining gendered power imbalances not least in the private, micro-level arena where IPVAW occurs. Nonetheless, a review of previous studies based on interviews with victims, perpetrators, and IPVAW professionals in Sweden (Wemrell, Stjernl€of, et al., 2019) concludes that the Nordic Paradox has not been adequately explained. While previous research has indeed brought attention to the co-existence of high levels of gender equality and IPVAW in Nordic countries (Clarke,2011), and to the complex relation-ship between gender inequality and violence against women (Kearns et al., 2020), there is a lack of empirical, qualitative studies specifically focused on the Nordic Paradox (Wemrell, Stjernl€of, et al., 2019). This is despite the importance of understanding this paradox in Nordic and inter-national contexts (Eriksson & Pringle, 2005; Hardesty & Ogolsky, 2020), due to its potential implications for IPVAW policy and prevention. The aim of this article is therefore to further our understanding of the Nordic Paradox by investigating how it is discussed by IPVAW professio-nals working in southern Sweden.
IPVAW in Sweden
IPVAW can be defined as sexually, physically, psychologically, or economically coercive acts against women by their current or former partners (United Nations,2006), including online vio-lence and viovio-lence mediated by information and communications technology (ICT) (OHCHR,
2018), without the woman’s consent. While measuring the prevalence of IPVAW and comparing
results over time or between countries is difficult, due to differences in the definition and report-ing of the issue and to varyreport-ing samplreport-ing and study methods (e.g., Hyden et al., 2016), the FRA (2014) used the same survey questions and similar methods across the EU for the purpose of increasing comparability. Over 40,000 women, with at least 900 from each EU country, responded. Psychometric studies of the responses to the FRA survey (Gracia et al., 2019;
Martın-Fernandez et al., 2019, 2020) affirm the comparability of the data between countries, thus sup-porting the interpretation of differences in IPVAW prevalence as reflecting actual difference rather than measurement bias.
The high IPVAW levels found in Sweden by the FRA (2014) are corroborated by other studies. Lifetime prevalence of physical IPVAW in Sweden has been estimated at 14% (NCK,2015), 15% (BRÅ, 2014), and 16% (L€ovestad & Krantz, 2012). Measures of lifetime prevalence of sexual IPVAW vary between 7% (NCK, 2015), 9% (Nybergh et al., 2013), and 10% (L€ovestad & Krantz, 2012), while that of psychological IPVAW has been measured to be 20% (NCK, 2015), 24% (BRÅ,2014; Nybergh et al.,2013), and 41% (L€ovestad & Krantz,2012). In 2018–2019, 38 women were killed by their current or previous partner (BRÅ,2020).
Meanwhile, the gender equality index (GEI) of the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE, 2017, 2019), which is based on the six domains of work, money, knowledge, time, power, and health, has rated Sweden as the most gender-equal country in the EU since 2005. Similarly, the World Economic Forum (2015, 2020) and the United Nations Gender Inequality Index (2019) have rated Sweden as one of the world’s most gender equal countries. With regard to IPVAW policy, Sweden made relatively early advancements compared to other countries (Corradi & Stockl, 2014), and has been assigned a position of international leadership in the area (GREVIO, 2019). Following the criminalization of wife battering in 1864, the legal framework surrounding IPVAW in Sweden has developed not least through the Women’s Integrity legisla-tion (Kvinnofridsreformen) (SOU,1995:60) adopted in 1998 (Prop1997/98:55). One of the current goals of Sweden’s national gender equality policy is to eradicate men’s violence against women
(Prop 2005/06:155), and a national strategy for combating IPVAW has been established (Skr,
2016/17:10). Meanwhile, the implementation of IPVAW laws and policies has also been critiqued (e.g., GREVIO,2019).
The responsibility for addressing and preventing IPVAW in Sweden is distributed amongst several governmental and non-governmental organizations. While the women’s shelter movement has played a key role in supporting victims and raising awareness about IPVAW (Helmersson,
2017), in recent years, through amendments to the Social Services Act (SOSFS, 2014:4), munici-palities’ responsibilities for monitoring IPVAW and providing victim support have increased. The County Administrative Boards (L€ansstyrelser) have been commissioned to support the implemen-tation of the national strategy for combating IPVAW (Skr,2016/17:10), while the police and judi-cial system work for the enforcement of IPVAW law and the Swedish Prison and Probation Services offer treatment programs to perpetrators (SOU, 2018:37). The healthcare system bears the responsibility of detecting IPVAW and offering proper treatment (SOSFS,2014:4).
Approaches to and understandings of IPVAW among professionals in Sweden have been studied largely due to their importance for societal responses to victims and perpetrators (e.g., Edin et al., 2008; Henriksen et al., 2017; Hoppstadius, 2018; Hultmann et al., 2014; T€ornqvist, 2017; Weinehall,2011). Here, we direct our interest toward how professionals, who we assume to be informed by IPVAW policy and debates circulating in the media and public debates, as well as by their own encounters with victims and perpetrators (Edin et al., 2008), make sense of the Nordic Paradox in their discussions. For this purpose, we recruited 30 IPVAW professionals from the organizations mentioned above, to answer the question of how the Nordic paradox is discussed by IPVAW professionals working in southern Sweden.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Gatekeepers at organizations working with IPVAW in southern Sweden were contacted, informed about the study, and asked to host a focus group as this was assumed to make participation more feasible for employees. Professionals were then contacted through a regional network for IPVAW professionals, invitation e-mails, and snowball sampling through which contacted professionals were asked to share the invitation with colleagues.
The focus group method was chosen as it allows interactions and discussions including differ-ent viewpoints (Tolley et al.,2016). The individual and paired interviews were performed at a sec-ondary stage, with participants who were unable to attend a focus group or were recruited later via direct invitations e-mails and tips from other participants.
In total, five focus groups with 19 participants (3–5 in each group), and nine interviews with 11 participants were held. Two focus groups were held at women’s shelters, two were conducted at municipal social service units, and one at a probation unit. The interviews were conducted at the professionals’ workplace or, in one case, home. One interview was held via telephone. Most of the professionals were recruited from municipal social service units, while others came from women’s shelters, healthcare, a probation unit working with IPVAW perpetrators, the county administrative board, the judicial sphere, and the police (seeTable 1). While it is not impossible that some participants had personal experiences of IPVAW, all were recruited on the basis of their professional involvement with the issue.
The focus groups lasted for 75–90 minutes and the interviews for 40–60 minutes each. A mod-erator (MW) and a notetaker (SS) were present, except for three individual interviews which were held by one coauthor (MW or SS). After a brief introduction to the research project, during which the professionals gave informed consent for their participation and agreed to maintain confidentiality within the group (e.g., Tolley et al.,2016), the concept of the Nordic Paradox was outlined. The term was noted to refer to the co-existence of high levels of gender equality and of IPVAW in Nordic countries, with reference to the mentioned article by Gracia and Merlo (2016).
The data on the basis of which the paradox has been formulated—Sweden’s leading position in the 2017 EIGE gender equality index (EIGE, 2017), and the lifetime prevalence rates of physical or sexual IPVAW in Sweden (28%), Denmark (32%) and Finland (30%) measured by the FRA (2014), as compared to the EU average (22%)—were presented. The subsequent discussion
fol-lowed a semi-structured interview guide.
The first interview questions asked about the participants’ initial thoughts regarding the Nordic Paradox. The following questions inquired about how and to what extent the participants perceived IPVAW to be linked with gender equality, and about any other causative factors that might explain the high IPVAW rates in Nordic countries. In the latter parts of the focus groups and interviews, if not already spontaneously addressed by the participants, questions were asked about the suggested explanations for the paradox indicated by Gracia and Merlo (2016), men-tioned above. Participants were thus asked about their thoughts on whether IPVAW in Sweden and other Nordic countries could be understood as being linked to gender-related tensions including backlash effects, to disproportionally high IPVAW risk in some societal groups, or to alcohol consumption patterns. The professionals were also asked about ways in which efforts to address IPVAW could be improved. Finally, the participants were asked if any relevant issues had been left out of the discussion.
During the focus groups and interviews, the semi-structured approach facilitated ample space for the participants’ own associations. Moments of silence, during which participants had time to gather their thoughts, were allowed, and questions like “do you all agree,” “is this anyone else’s experience,” and “do I understand you correctly, in that … ” were used to stimulate discussion. The participants were often asked to elaborate on their responses or provide examples. During the focus groups, notes were taken to record interactions or nonverbal behaviors such as expres-sions of agreement or disapproval (Stewart et al.,2007).
The focus groups and interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim (SS) and analyzed the-matically (Braun & Clarke,2006). At an initial stage the focus groups were coded (SS) and ana-lyzed (SS and MW), while at a secondary stage, the individual and paired interviews were included in the material and coded (SS). All the material was then reanalyzed and all coding revised (MW). Throughout the process, the analysis followed a series of steps, aided by the soft-ware program NVivo. First, the transcripts were read for the development of initial codes. The codes were then sorted into categories and themes, which were reviewed and revised (see Tables 2 and 3). This thematic analysis resulted in a descriptive analysis of the contents of the discus-sions. These contents are not regarded as repositories of objective truth but as articulations by professionals influenced, as noted, by IPVAW policy and debates in the media and in public are-nas, as well as by the individuals’ encounters with victims and perpetrators (Edin et al., 2008).
The study was approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (Dnr 2019-00221). Prior to journal submission, manuscript drafts were sent to participants who had indicated an interest in Table 1. Professionals participating in the focus groups and interviews.
Number of participants
Organizations Focus Groups Interviews Total
Non-governmental women’s shelter 3 0 3
Municipal social service unit 9 5 14
Healthcare 2 1 3
County administrative board 1 2 3
Probation unit 3 0 3 Judicial professionals 1 1 2 Police 2 2 Women 17 10 27 Men 2 1 3 30 The three men were from municipal social service units.
Table 2. Example of analytical process, from data extract to theme. Data extract Coded as Subcategory Category Theme The spontaneous thought is, for me personally, that the awareness in Sweden and the Nordic countries is quite high and … I think women in Nordic countries are more aware of their rights and … opportunities for protection or interventions from other authorities, in comparison for example with countries further down in the south (… ) From experience I know that it [prevalence] is very high in Italy too, but this mentality that you don ’t perhaps talk and speak. That ’s m y spontaneous thought. Awareness of violence affects disclosure Societal awareness Yes, Swedish people are more aware of and more likely to disclose IPVAW Does the Nordic Paradox arise from IPVAW being more visible in Sweden?
taking part in the output before publication in order to validate, correct or discuss any interpreta-tions (e.g., Frambach et al., 2013). No disagreements with or questions regarding the analysis or its results were voiced by the nine participants who responded.
The focus groups and interviews were held in Swedish. Quotes from focus group participants (FGP) and interview participants (IP) were translated into English by the authors, who made minor changes to phrasing in order to facilitate the reading (Tolley et al.,2016).
The interview questions referred to violence against women, without distinguishing between cis- and transgender women.
RESULTS
Three overarching themes, including categories and subcategories, were identified through the thematic analysis (seeTable 3). These are formulated as questions: Does the Nordic Paradox arise from IPVAW being more visible in Sweden?; Can unanticipated effects of gender equality on IPVAW explain the Nordic Paradox?; and Do factors other than gender equality contribute to the Nordic Paradox?
Does the Nordic Paradox Arise from IPVAW Being more Visible in Sweden?
Unprompted by interview questions pointed in the specific direction, discussions in all focus groups and interviews suggested that the Nordic Paradox may reflect a larger degree of disclosure and visibility of IPVAW, rather than a higher prevalence level, in Sweden than in other EU states. However, participants also talked, often in other parts of the discussions, about barriers to dis-closure and tendencies toward rendering IPVAW invisible in Sweden.
Table 3. Themes and categories.
IPVAW professionals’ discussion about the Nordic Paradox
Themes Categories Subcategories
Does the Nordic Paradox arise from IPVAW being more visible in Sweden?
Yes, Swedish people are more aware of and more likely to disclose IPVAW
Societal awareness
Existing resources and support Definition and naming of violence Gender equality
No, Swedish women face barriers to disclosure and IPVAW remains largely invisible
Shame
Resistance to the issue Gender equality Othering Can unanticipated effects of gender
equality on IPVAW explain the Nordic Paradox?
Yes, gender equality can exacerbate IPVAW
Backlash
Tension surrounding gender roles Assumptions of equality affecting
support services
Well, Sweden is not that gender equal Swedish gender equality (index) in question
Private sphere and gender norms Surface-level equality
IPVAW and inequality in all groups in society
No, IPVAW is not that closely linked to (in)equality
Gender (in)equality does not fully explain IPVAW
Different approaches to IPVAW and gender equality
Still, gender (in)equality remains central Do factors other than gender equality
contribute to the Nordic Paradox?
Yes, the Nordic Paradox may have other explanations
Individualism
Lacking communication of emotions Alcohol consumption patterns Still, interwoven with aspects
Yes, Swedish People Are More Aware of and More Likely to Disclose IPVAW
When initially asked about their thoughts surrounding the Nordic Paradox, participants in all focus groups and interviews raised thoughts, often immediately, about the data (FRA, 2014) on the basis of which the apparent paradox is formulated. Doubts were thus expressed about the reality of the higher IPVAW rates in Sweden, compared to many other EU states.“I question the numbers,” as one participant (FGP 5:2) put it.
Spontaneously you think perhaps we are more prone to report [IPVAW] here in Sweden…
I thought so too, I mean also how violence is defined, what you consider to be violence…
I also think there is another sense of awareness… I think that in those other countries maybe that
doesn’t exist … That conversation isn’t there, kind of. (FGP 2:1,2,4)
Participants highlighted that a range of factors may affect disclosure. The level of societal awareness about IPVAW was noted to likely affect the degree to which“the issue exists” (IP 6), or is recognized (IP 8) and “speakable” (IP 3), in different societal contexts. Related factors included the availability of existing resources and support, such as IPVAW support institutions, economic conditions enabling women to leave abusive relationships, and legal conditions such as the extent to which marital rape has been criminalized.
Disclosure was discussed in terms of the definition and naming of violence, i.e., of what is regarded as being violent. Emphasis was given to the complexity of naming IPVAW, e.g., due to normalization processes (Lundgren, 2012). A relative lack of awareness of IPVAW and women’s
rights was associated to situations in which a victim “does not see it, I mean does not place the label of violence on it” (FGP 1:1), and it was noted that in a situation where support systems are lacking, recognition of IPVAW, or of “even daring to name it in your own head” (FGP 3:3), could be averted as it would place the woman in an impossible position. Some participants noted that even if questions refer to specific forms of violence, such as in the FRA survey (2014), acts of defining violence may differ between individuals and contexts:“A slap; what is a slap for me, what is a slap for you?” (IP 6).
In these discussions, conditions in Sweden and other Nordic countries were typically posited as being more conducive to IPVAW disclosure than in other EU states, due to the presence of relative gender equality.
You have it closer to the front of your consciousness… You are aware that ‘I have been violated in this
way’; you remember it and you can put words on it. But if you are in another country where, maybe, it
hasn’t been okay to talk about these things and there isn’t really any support to seek … then it won’t even
appear in the front of your thought activity, because you have just repressed it. (FGP 3:3)
Accordingly, three participants stated that they were unsurprised by the higher IPVAW levels in Nordic countries, as these were seen to likely result from a larger share of undisclosed violence in other, less gender equal, EU states.
To me it’s natural that it looks like that. It doesn’t surprise me … Because we have come a long way in
gender equality. We acknowledge it. (IP 9)
No, Swedish Women Face Barriers to Disclosure and IPVAW Remains Largely Invisible
Participants also talked about barriers to IPVAW disclosure and tendencies toward rendering IPVAW unseen in Sweden.
Among obstacles to disclosure, on the level of individual victims, participants in most focus groups and interviews brought up the topic of shame. Such feelings were argued to likely be severe among women in Sweden due to expectations or assumptions of gender equality.
I think the shame might be stronger here, because you are expected, you have the opportunity to live in gender equality. To a larger extent than you can in many other countries, which means you should be
gender equal on all levels and not be exposed to violence. I think that if you still are, it is a larger step to admit it because it becomes so shameful that you have exposed yourself to this in our gender-equal
society… You want to maintain outwardly that I live a gender equal relationship. (FGP 5:1)
This issue of shame was thus related by some participants to a desire to maintain an appearance of equality, and to a conflict between the ideal of strong Swedish women and realities of IPVAW exposure. Along related lines, two participants pointed to women identify-ing as feminists beidentify-ing likely to experience a great degree of shame for beidentify-ing exposed to IPVAW.
I absolutely think that… it can become even more filled with shame if you are that gender equal and
that… being a feminist … because on a theoretical level you can see and understand, perhaps, but that
doesn’t necessarily help. (FGP 2:2)
On an institutional and societal level, several participants spoke about tendencies toward resist-ance to hearing about and dealing with the issue, in general and among professionals, expressed through downplaying the problem, not asking questions about it and disbelieving victims. Relatedly, a few participants spoke about IPVAW largely being invisible in some institu-tional contexts.
You meet professionals who almost question whether the problem exists. It surprises me immensely…
Then, I think, you have been closing your eyes [agreements from the group]. And I think that comes hand
in hand with… a lot of insecurity around asking, posing questions … You don’t really dare to go into it.
(FGP 2:3)
You don’t ask. You are so afraid of offending and of doing something wrong, so you forget to ask. (IP 9)
Some participants, in two cases with reference to a culture of silence (tystnadskultur), spoke about a lack of awareness of IPVAW, to“how few people know how common it is—it has been made so invisible” (FGP 2:2) and to assumptions that “it doesn’t concern the large collective” (FGP 2:4).
I’m almost as surprised still … when I say what I work with … that so many react, like, ‘does that exist?’ or
‘does that exist in Sweden?’. (FGP 2:2)
Notions of unawareness of IPVAW were expressed through the use of metaphors such as “protective barrier,” “shield” (FGP 1:3) or “bubble” (FGP 2:4). With reference to tolerance toward IPVAW in Sweden, one participant stated that:
[w]e live in a society, here in Sweden also, with an extremely high… acceptance for violence. And above
all violence against women, I would say. Considering what a low priority it is legally. (IP 2)
Tendencies toward rendering IPVAW unseen and undisclosed were, as noted, linked by some participants to a national self-image of Sweden as gender equal. A few participants pointed toward a desire to maintain this image: “you want so badly to be able to show these numbers, that we are equal” (FGP 2:3), and toward a will for “us all to live up to that … myth” (IP 3):
We call ourselves equal… and close our eyes to all the problems we have. (IP 4)
Resistance to awareness of IPVAW was also tied, in most of the focus groups and around half of the interviews, to a pattern of othering IPVAW, whereby IPVAW was noted to be assumed to primarily occur in particular groups, notably immigrant ones. Othering was mentioned in relation to resistance among Swedish perpetrators to define themselves as such, and among women to identify and thus disclose themselves as victims. One professional noted that “we like to think that in our little… nice group, we don’t have any people like that, among us” (IP 9):
It’s ‘us and them’ … We get these cliches so … then we don’t have to deal with it. (IP 9)
The tension or contradiction between these discussions about barriers to disclosure and aware-ness in Sweden and those positing IPVAW disclosure as likely to be more common in Sweden than elsewhere was on occasion noted, although not resolved, by participants.
Can unanticipated Effects of Gender Equality on IPVAW explain the Nordic Paradox?
Participants spoke at length about links between IPVAW and gender (in)equality, in relation to the Nordic Paradox. Many such discussions concerned potential backlash effects, or other impacts of the presence or assumption of gender equality, on IPVAW incidence. Others placed the Nordic Paradox in some question by suggesting that Sweden is not as gender equal as is often presumed. Finally, some dislocated the two sides of the Nordic Paradox—IPVAW and gender (in)equality—by stating that these are not very closely related.
Yes, Gender Equality Can Exacerbate IPVAW
Notions of backlash against gender equality were discussed in all focus groups and interviews, in most instances as participants raised the subject themselves and in a few cases in response to an interview question inquiring about their thoughts on this hypothetical explanation (Gracia & Merlo,2016) to the Nordic Paradox.
Regarding backlash dynamics on the individual or relational level, participants stated that IPVAW could be triggered by women working, attaining more freedom of movement, having a higher income or education than their partners, or backing away from carrying the main respon-sibility assigned to them of domestic and family life. Two participants suggested, in this context, that the Nordic Paradox could perhaps be partially explained by Sweden’s comparatively large share of women in paid employment. In most focus groups and interviews, participants noted that feminism and women’s claims to space in public spheres and debates can be seen as pro-vocative, while a couple of the professionals observed that feminism does not insulate women from IPVAW exposure and that it is not uncommon for women identifying as feminists to seek help due to IPVAW. A general argument was that demands for equality can render a conflict between the genders visible, and open up for heightened friction, conflict levels, everyday power negotiations, and aggression.
In the struggle for equality it becomes obvious that there is a conflict between the genders… And the
more you push for equality and note that we are not equal… you highlight that there is a difference,
and this process can create aggressions… Like the suffragettes, kind of, we demand the right to vote,
well then violence increases to clarify that here there is a conflict. (FGP 1:1) An equality issue, or equality chaos, has been created, you could say. (FGP 3:1)
Professionals observed that when hierarchical gender relations are unperturbed, violence may not be “required” for the perpetuation of male privilege. When attributes of male power become less self-evident, IPVAW may be resorted to. In this sense, violence was sometimes referred to as a sort of price to be paid for the struggle toward gender equality.
When you fight for equality, as a woman, perhaps you also need to pay a price for that struggle…
Resistance can create violence. (IP 4)
The concept of backlash was furthermore tied to women’s increasing ability to divorce, in the context of relative gender equality, as separation was noted to be fraught with the risk of onset or attenuation of IPVAW. Relatedly, participants in one focus group and one interview noted that many women in Nordic countries have several relationships over time, which would increase the risk of meeting a violent man and thereby add to IPVAW prevalence.
Notions of backlash on a societal level were also discussed. Relatively fast movements toward gender equality in Sweden were noted to potentially trigger violence, and attacks on feminists in
recent public debate, alongside comments that gender equality has“gone too far” (FGP 2:4), were noted alongside references to a general backlash against gender equality:
I think we are in a period of backlash when it comes to these questions… Five years ago we pretty much
agreed on gender equality questions, and I don’t feel like we are quite there right now … In recent years
there has been a backwards development. (IP 1)
Participants in one focus group and one interview pointed to a backwards movement with ref-erence to younger generations, regarding an acceptance of violence and a lenience toward more traditional gender roles.
I can be surprised at how many [teenage] girls think it’s okay that boyfriends tell them ‘you can’t be in
contact with your male friends,’ ‘I’m gonna read your text messages, go through your phone,’ that somehow
this becomes normalized.
Yes, I think so too, when you speak to younger clients… you can become quite afraid that we have gone
several steps back… when it comes to jealousy, control, what is reasonable and … I think ‘Oh my God.’
(FGP 4:3,4)
Finally, backlash was discussed in terms of new forms of control in contemporary society, through the use of social media and ICTs.
Other discussions concerning ways in which relative gender equality may have effects on IPVAW pointed to tension surrounding gender roles.
In this work towards equality… we can become a bit lost, both men and women, in what is my role now.
What is my role as a woman and what is my role as a man. Some uncertainties around that can create a
little… Conflicts may increase. (FGP 4:4)
A few participants referred explicitly to tension between traditional gender roles and gender equality norms as likely contributing to IPVAW causation, while many spoke about traditional gender roles as being associated with IPVAW, and about such roles or norms co-existing with gender equality ideals in Sweden. It was noted that friction may arise because even if gender-equality norms are agreed upon in principle, that may not translate into an ability to live accord-ingly, as values and associated practices tend to change slowly.
Discussions also concerned assumptions of gender equality as not only affecting disclosure but also potentially enabling the continuation of IPVAW through affecting support services. In two focus groups and one interview, participants spoke about a current drive in IPVAW policy and practice toward gender neutrality and the use of the concept of intimate partner violence (IPV), rather than men’s violence against women, as being positive through the inclusion of violence against males and in LGBTQI relationships, but as potentially rendering gendered power imbalan-ces invisible.
You have some sort of image of equality… but there’s no power aspect in that. (FGP 2:2)
Gender neutrality was referred to in terms of an“utmost gender equality” (FGP 2:2), which in the context of social and primarily legal services was noted to potentially lead to “the utmost expression of inequality” (FGP 2:2) through framing IPVAW as a conflict on equal power terms and giving the equal rights of both parents larger weight than that of IPVAW. A will toward “making parenting equal” (FGP 5:1) was thus noted to lead to situations where:
you judge for… fairness between the parents and forget the risk of violence … You want to raise the father
role to the degree that sometimes you can’t see the violence. (FGP 5:1)
It was thereby noted that gender neutrality could lead to the giving of advantages to violent men and thus enabling forms of IPVAW to continue. Participants also referred to a lack of knowledge about gender equality or power dynamics resulting in a questioning of IPVAW victims, and thus potentially in the tolerance toward or continuation of IPVAW.
Well, Sweden is Not That Gender Equal
In their discussions, some participants somewhat destabilized the Nordic Paradox by placing Swedish gender equality and its measures including the EIGE (2017) index in question. It was noted that measures of gender equality do not necessarily reflect all aspects of (in)equality.
I don’t think that we are measuring it [gender equality] in the correct way. Because there are inequalities
that become invisible in these measures. (FGP 1:1)
Relatedly, one participant referred to the complex and changeable nature of gender equality, while another pointed to a lack of consensus or even understanding of what the concept of gen-der equality means.
I’m not sure that we … that we all know what gender equality actually is … There may be numbers that
say that we understand gender equality, but I’m not sure that we know what it is, what it stands for. (IP 8)
Many participants noted that while notable progress has been made in Sweden with regard to formal measures of income, education, and political representation, equality in the private sphere, especially in heterosexual relationships, was posed as more questionable.
How much research has been made on equality in ordinary life, if we can call it that? There I don’t think
we’ve got any further than where we were 30–40 years ago. (FGP 3:5)
Division of the responsibility for domestic work and child care was discussed, as were rela-tional power dynamics and gender norms. With regard to such norms, and to the socialization of boys and girls, participants referred to a higher value placed on masculinity and males than on femininity and females in contemporary Sweden, e.g., as expressed in views of women existing largely to fulfill the needs of men.
Of course, wages and economic independence is really important, but… If we don’t see women as full
humans, then of course there is a foundation for violence. (FGP 1:1)
I think we should not pat each other on the back and go‘yes, we’re the most gender-equal country in the
world,’ but actually see that we are still sitting on quite a lot of … prejudice or ideas … which run deep.
(IP 10)
Participants referred to the persistence, in Sweden, of masculinity ideals of being strong and able to maintain order. Tendencies toward excusing or normalizing violence perpetrated by boys were pointed to, as were norms posing women as bearing the main responsibility, in heterosexual relationships, not only for domestic work and childcare but for the social or emotional well-being and behavior of their partners. Such norms and ideals were noted to align with IPVAW dynamics.
Participants in all focus groups and most interviews spoke, in some way, about Swedish gender equality as existing at a surface level, with inequalities remaining beneath. Some used images of a surface or a fac¸ade.
I think there is a lot under the surface. (IP 6)
We have this, there is a lot of this formal equality, but what is there under the surface? (FGP 2:2)
There is… a nice fac¸ade. (FGP 1:1)
Tensions between assumptions of gender equality and actual practices were construed in terms of a gap between the formal and the actual. Notions of a fac¸ade or outward appearance of gender equality were thus juxtaposed against a “missing substance” (FGP 2:2) and against misogynic dynamics playing out beneath the surface. This notion of a gap was further related to statements about IPVAW support as often being insufficient in practice, or as existing“more in talk than in action” (IP 2). While, as one participant put it, “on the surface it is all there, readily served” (FGP 2:3), many referred to tensions between laws, guidelines or formalized IPVAW systems and realities in which support is sometimes or often not adequately provided.
Through these discussions, then, the strong gender equality which makes up one side of the Nordic Paradox was to some degree challenged. Yet another discussion regarded the distribution of inequality and IPVAW between different societal groups, as a suggested explanation of the Nordic Paradox (Gracia & Merlo, 2016) indicates that the high IPVAW prevalence in Sweden might be due to the disproportionally common occurrence of IPVAW in certain socio-demographic groups. This suggestion resonates with parts of public debate on IPVAW in Sweden, in which patriarchal values or cultures and IPVAW are assumed to be more common in certain groups, notably among immigrants. This matter was discussed by participants, spontan-eously or in response to interview questions.
Participants in two focus groups and three interviews referred to having seen or believing in some form of overrepresentation of immigrated IPVAW victims or perpetrators, in general or at their work place. Regardless of whether any such eventual overrepresentation was posited, how-ever, and how it was explained, participants were in overall agreement that IPVAW prevalence was not isolated to and could not be explained by occurrence in specific groups. Most partici-pants, including those working with both perpetrators and victims, emphasized that IPVAW is distributed between all groups in society.
I say it’s in all [groups]. All.
I agree. It’s everyone. Completely. (FGP 5:2,1)
If you look at all the clients you’ve had over the years, then it’s been from all societal groups. There’s not
one that’s, kind of, been heavier than the other. (FGP 4:1)
Meanwhile, several participants spoke about frequent encounters with the idea that IPVAW primarily occurs among immigrants. This previously mentioned tendency toward othering of IPVAW was tied to the notion of surface-level equality.
Neither those who perpetrate nor those exposed… want to kind of touch those concepts or belong to those
groups. So… there is a risk that a great deal goes on beneath the surface. (FGP 2:2)
No, IPVAW is Not That Closely Linked to (in)Equality
Some participant discussions dislocated the two sides of the Nordic Paradox—IPVAW and gender (in)equality—by positing that gender inequality does not fully explain IPVAW.
It isn’t necessarily connected, because partner violence is something else that has to do with other things
than gender equality. It has to do with aggressiveness… and I don’t think that is as connected to gender
equality as one would think. (FGP 5:2)
In all focus groups and interviews, the importance of other factors, including socioeconomic vulnerability, mental ill-health, use of alcohol, stress, and previous exposure to violence, were noted. Violence in LGBTQI relationships, and IPV against men, were also discussed in terms of the potential inadequacy of gender inequality as an explanatory model. Some participants empha-sized the importance of an intersectional (Crenshaw,1989; de los Reyes et al., 2002) perspective, and a few referred to the ecological model (Heise, 1998) which conceptualizes a range of causes for IPVAW at the level of the individual, relationship, community and society. One professional spoke about “choosing the equality angle” (FGP 1:1), thus clarifying that IPVAW can be viewed in different ways. Another participant reported not having thought about the importance of gen-der equality for IPVAW.
Accordingly, some participants, in one instance with reference to a “clash of starting points” (IP 2), spoke about the co-existence of different approaches to IPVAW and its link to gender inequality among IPVAW professionals in general. It was noted that many professionals work according to a more individually oriented outlook and “do not consider the gender aspect”
(IP 3). Participants thereby suggested that, among Swedish professionals, IPVAW is not necessar-ily understood or handled as being very closely related to gender inequality.
Still, participating professionals in all focus groups and interviews spoke about gender inequal-ity as being of central importance to IPVAW. IPVAW was referred to as “the physical and psy-chological expression of… a difference in value” (FGP 2:2), and as one of the gravest consequences of inequality. Various aspects of gender inequality, such as an unequal distribution of economic resources, lack of availability of childcare and the stigmatization of single women, were noted to be conducive to IPVAW while making it difficult for women to leave abusive part-ners. While factors such as mental ill-health and socioeconomic vulnerability were brought up, these were typically not in themselves perceived to explain IPVAW. Power dynamics were posited as a core element in IPV, including when perpetrated by women or in LGBTQI relationships. Enactments of power, or behaviors coded as masculine, such as being violent and attempting to “try to be the bigger and stronger … person in that relationship” (IP 5), were here noted to not only be practiced by men in heterosexual relationships.
Power imbalances can look different in different types of relationships… But as long as there are
hierarchies and power discrepancies between different groups and individuals, there is potential violence. (FGP 1:1)
Do factors Other than Gender Equality Contribute to the Nordic Paradox?
Participants were asked about, and thus discussed, what factors other than gender (in)equality might potentially contribute toward explaining the Nordic Paradox.
Yes, the Nordic Paradox May Have Other Explanations
Notions of individualism were brought up in all focus groups and three interviews, as a feature of Swedish society which may have implications for IPVAW and thus for the Nordic Paradox. Some participants spoke specifically about individualism, while others posited Swedes as being relatively closed and alone and as valuing integrity, privacy and independence. Individualism was noted to impede relationships, through hindering intimate interpersonal connections, and to hamper the willingness to intervene in IPVAW. Participants also tied individualism to norms of coupledom and nuclear families.
Everything in Sweden is so private, you are not allowed to intrude or say anything. Everything should be
kept private… Meanwhile in many of those countries, it becomes a … family matter or societal matter and
you deal with it in a more open… You can intervene in another way than you do here. (FGP 5:3)
I mean the nuclear… norm and this privacy thinking, that you shouldn’t disturb or get involved, maybe
that’s something that’s different in other countries. (FGP 1:3)
While Swedish individualism was tied by some to reliance on the welfare state, others related it to the striving for personal success in an increasingly competitive society. Privacy or isolation was furthermore seen to align with IPVAW dynamics, as a lack of social networks was noted to create vulnerability for IPVAW and form obstacles to leaving abusive partners. On occasion, statements about individualism as being conducive to IPVAW were contrasted against strong family bonds otherwise construed as contributing to honor-related violence.
Another characteristic of Swedish society posited as being of potential relevance to IPVAW and thus to the Nordic Paradox, discussed in all focus groups and in five interviews, was lacking management of emotions. While a limited ability to handle emotions was related to masculinity norms and socialization of boys, the display of emotions was also posited as generally not being encouraged in Sweden. Swedes were described as quiet, restrained, and afraid of conflict.
Holding some feelings back… like feeling small, feeling down, feeling weak … It becomes like a pressure
imagine that the Nordic man is more restrained and more frustrated in these… feelings around showing weakness. (FGP 5:2)
A lack of the ability to speak about and manage emotions was noted to align with IPVAW dynamics, to contribute toward IPVAW causation, and to be linked to a reluctance to acknow-ledge and intervene in IPVAW. Difficulties with expressing and handling emotion were also tied to individualism.
Furthermore, some participants brought up the relevance of alcohol consumption patterns for IPVAW causation in Sweden. Others discussed this issue in response to an interview question about this suggested explanation (Gracia & Merlo,2016) to the Nordic Paradox. Professionals in three focus groups and three interviews emphasized or agreed on its importance:
I think, from a bit of experience with the police, one has seen quite a lot of alcohol and drugs… There is a
culture of drinking every weekend. That’s not very common in other countries. (FGP 3:5)
Others, in two focus groups and four interviews, questioned the relevance of alcohol consump-tion for IPVAW causaconsump-tion, particularly in cases of continuous and systematic violence.
No, I don’t think so. I don’t think so … When you talk with those exposed, then … it usually appears that
‘yes, sometimes he hit me when he was drunk, but he also hit me when he was sober.’ So there is no automatic connection, no. (FGP 5:1)
Diverging views on the importance of alcohol were expressed by participants in dialogue, and also at times by the same participants.
In the participants’ discussions, the above-mentioned factors were sometimes noted to be inter-woven with aspects of gender inequality. Individualism was tied to pressure toward personal suc-cess in realms including gender equality, and to the maintenance of appearances of happiness and success in a society where prosperous and gender-equal lives are seen as attainable and dependent on personal choice. Others connected individualism to the placing of responsibility for IPVAW on the victim.
You’re supposed to be so gender equal and stand up for yourself … this increasing individualism … Then
it’s up to you to say ‘stop, I’m leaving,’ and you’re supposed to manage on your own. (FGP 1:1)
Lack of management of emotion was associated with surface-level appearances of gender equality, and with violent anger emerging from beneath it.
If it’s not okay to show anger … you’re supposed to keep it in, well then that can easily come out
somewhere. I mean if what’s displayed outwardly is supposed to be ‘we are gender equal, it’s all good’ and,
well this political correctness and everything, then maybe… you don’t keep up in that and then this …
inward anger around all of this perhaps… comes out … at home, in the relationships. (FGP 4:4)
It can come out even when it looks very nice in shape on the surface. (FGP 5:3)
A gender-equal surface appearance was thus tied to rational or political principles potentially being in tension with emotional processes involving power and fear.
Then it’s still not, emotionally you don’t keep up. You can change something theoretically and think it’s
right… but that doesn’t mean that you can manage handling it when you are in the situations. (IP 6)
A gender-inequality perspective was also applied to management of emotion in the sense that norms discouraging the expression of emotion among males were posed as an aspect of inequality that is also unbeneficial to men.
Finally, the use of alcohol in the context of IPVAW was also related to the presence of gen-der inequality.
Sure, Swedes, Finns and Norwegians perhaps become more aggressive when they drink liquor… but then
there are groups where they don’t drink and the violence is equally strong. So [alcohol] could be an excuse
DISCUSSION
The aim of this study was to further our understanding of the Nordic Paradox by investigating how IPVAW professionals spoke about the co-existence of high levels of IPVAW and of gender equality in Sweden and its neighboring Nordic countries. While not providing any clear, potential resolution to the Nordic Paradox, the discussions highlighted complexities of gender (in)equality and its links with IPVAW in Sweden. The presence of such complexities, alongside co-existing perspectives and a lack of self-evident resolutions, is reflected in the formulation of the main themes as questions rather than statements.
Does the Nordic Paradox Arise from IPVAW Being More Visible in Sweden?
A contradiction was evident in discussions positing IPVAW levels as related to patterns of dis-closure and visibility. Most participants suggested that high IPVAW rates in Sweden and neigh-boring Nordic countries, and thus the Nordic Paradox, could be understood in relation to relatively low levels of undisclosed violence due to gender equality and IPVAW awareness. In subsequent debates, however, many pointed to substantial resistance to such an awareness and disclosure in Sweden, also related to the presence or assumption of relative gender equality.
It should here be noted that some research findings do not support the idea that women in Sweden are more prone toward IPVAW disclosure than those in other EU states. Psychometric studies of the FRA survey responses (Gracia et al., 2019; Martın-Fernandez et al., 2019, 2020) affirm the comparability of the data between countries, and thus speak against differences being due to measurement bias. Moreover, according to a measure of likelihood for disclosure pre-sented by EIGE (2017) on the basis of the FRA survey (2014), the share of women in Sweden (15.4%) who reported having experienced physical and/or sexual violence in the past 12 months and who had not told anyone about the most serious incident was higher than the EU average (14.3%). However, this percentage was calculated on the basis of those who had (survey-)reported IPVAW exposure, and, according to participating professionals, such disclosure may still be affected by a range of factors.
On a general level, it is known that survey reportation of IPVAW can be affected by, e.g., issues surrounding the definition of violence (Myhill,2017) and, in the case of telephone or face-to-face surveys, the level of trust or rapport established between interviewer and respondent (Hyden et al., 2016; Schwartz, 2000). In the case of Sweden, researchers have previously argued that assumptions of gender equality can present specific challenges for the disclosure of IPVAW. Br€annvall (2016) states that expectations of gender equality can create additional difficulties for women to identify and disclose IPVAW, while Gottzen and Korkmaz (2013) note that notions of gender-equal Swedish women can construe IPVAW as the responsibility or failure of the victims. Assumptions of equality have been linked to the “gendered shame” (Enander,2010) of failing to live up to the equality supposedly available to Swedish women (Agevall, 2012; Alsaker et al.,
2016; Br€annvall, 2016; Scheffer Lindgren & Renck, 2008b). Research has also pointed toward resistance to acknowledging (Br€annvall, 2016; H€aggblom & M€oller, 2007), naming (Flinck et al.,
2005) and remembering (Agevall,2012; Edin & Nilsson,2013; Hyden,1992; Scheffer Lindgren & Renck, 2008b) IPVAW among victims and perpetrators in Sweden. A relative invisibility of the IPVAW issue in Sweden has also been pointed out (Br€annvall, 2016; Mattsson, 2016; SOU,2004:121).
In alignment with previous research, then, the participants’ discussions suggested that the rela-tionship between IPVAW disclosure and relative gender equality can be complex and contradict-ory. While the presence of gender equality can be conducive to IPVAW awareness and disclosure, it may also present obstacles to both. Thus, this indicates that the question of whether
the Nordic Paradox arises from IPVAW being more visible in Sweden is not entirely easy to answer.
Can Unanticipated Effects of Gender Equality on IPVAW Explain the Nordic Paradox?
Complexities and co-existing perspectives also emerged in discussions surrounding Sweden’s rela-tive gender equality, as related to the Nordic Paradox.
One line of discussion weakened the link between the two sides of the paradox—IPVAW and gender inequality—as participants placed emphasis on other individually, socially or relationally oriented and more gender-neutral causative factors including aggression, mental ill-health, and socio-economic status. This is in accordance with explanatory models pointing to the multicausal-ity of IPVAW (Heise, 1998), and to a study (Ivert et al., 2020) indicating that, within the EU, countrylevel gender equality does not predict individual experiences of IPVAW. The questioning of the importance of gender inequality for IPVAW can be related to Heise’s (2011) argument that only limited empirical data exist to prove the link between the two phenomena, and to research (Dutton,2012; Dutton et al.,2010) claiming, largely with reference to IPV against males, that they are not very closely associated. Suggested explanations for IPVAW other than gender inequality include learned behavior (O’Leary, 1988), lack of impulse control (Dutton, 1997), sub-stance abuse (Kantor & Straus, 1987) and social acceptance of violence (Gelles & Straus, 1988). The questioning of the relevance of gender inequality for IPVAW is furthermore in line with studies showing a co-existence of different approaches to IPVAW among professionals in Sweden, and to the common falling-away of gender and power perspectives in practice (Holmberg & Bender,2003; Mattsson,2016; Wemrell, Stjernl€of, et al.,2019).
It is worth mentioning here that, alongside a movement toward gender neutrality in IPVAW policy and practice, a shift has arguably taken place in Sweden through which a more structural understanding of IPVAW as related to power dynamics has given way to a more individualistic approach, and to a focus on specific vulnerable groups (Holmberg et al.,2015). This implies, and was also suggested by the participating professionals, that while the Nordic Paradox is formulated on the back of a framing of IPVAW as largely connected to gender inequality, IPVAW in Sweden is not self-evidently represented or understood in such a manner. At the same time, most participants in this study maintained the centrality of the link between gender or power (in)equality and IPVAW.
Among the suggested explanations for the Nordic Paradox (Gracia & Merlo, 2016) dis-cussed by the IPVAW professionals, the one that found the most support referred to gender-related tensions including backlash effects. Backlash effects were debated in all focus groups and interviews, alongside noted discussion about confusion due to gender equality ideals co-existing with more traditional gender norms. This is in accordance with previous research pointing to increased conflict levels due to efforts toward gender equality (Gr€onlund & Haller€od, 2008) and framing IPVAW as related to backlash and challenged masculinity norms (Bjelland, 2014; Ericsson, 2020; Flinck et al., 2005; Gottzen, 2014; Helmersson, 2017). Participants’ comments about a current backlash against women’s rights in Europe are also supported by research (Corredor, 2019; EU, 2018). Overall, the participants’ statements on backlash effects, on individual and societal levels and with reference to younger generations, point to the complexity of links between gender (in)equality and IPVAW, while also issuing a warning against viewing advances toward gender equality as progress having been achieved once and for all.
Furthermore, discussions regarding assumptions of equality affecting social and legal support services, and potentially the continuation of IPVAW, are in resonance with research pointing out a problematic lack of a gender perspective in judicial and social service contexts, e.g., in cases of custody conflict and victim-blaming (Bruno,2018; Helmersson,2017; Mattsson,2016).
The suggestion that IPVAW rates can be explained through a disproportionately high preva-lence in some societal groups (Gracia & Merlo,2016) was meanwhile typically rejected. This dis-cussion largely focused on immigrant groups, and on popular debates positing these as more patriarchal and violent than Swedish persons. These discussions, the details of which lie beyond the scope of this article, frequently noted tendencies toward the othering of IPVAW, also repeat-edly observed in research (Br€annvall, 2016; Gottzen, 2012; Wemrell, Stjernl€of, et al., 2019). It is worth noting here that the share of the population born in another country is higher in Skåne (22%) (Region Skåne, 2020), the southernmost region in which the focus groups and interviews were conducted, than in Sweden as a whole (20%) (SCB,2020).
Finally, participants placed the Nordic Paradox in some question by critiquing Swedish gender equality and its measurements, such as the EIGE (2017) GEI. The complexity of the concept of gender equality, as related to IPVAW, noted in previous research (Kearns et al.,2020; Wemrell, Lila, et al.,2019; Wemrell, Stjernl€of, et al., 2019) thus found further resonance in participant dis-cussions. The professionals’ statements about limitations to Swedish gender equality, particularly in the private sphere and with regard to gender norms (Ert€urk, 2007; Gunnarsson, 2013), and about gaps between principles or guidelines and practices (SOU,2004:121; Stubberud et al.,2018) are also corroborated by research. Along these lines, participants’ discussions suggested that the Nordic Paradox is perhaps not as paradoxical as it may seem, since Sweden is maybe not as gen-der equal as it is often presumed to be.
In sum, the participants’ discussions about gender equality and its relevance for potential explanations of the Nordic Paradox pointed to a considerable complexity in the relationship between gender (in)equality and IPVAW.
Do Factors Other than Gender Equality Contribute to the Nordic Paradox?
With regards to characteristics other than relative gender equality which may relate to IPVAW prevalence while differentiating Swedish or Nordic countries from other EU states (Gracia & Merlo, 2016), the importance of alcohol consumption patterns was supported by some partici-pants but rejected by others. This is in accordance with studies showing a weak correlation between IPVAW and alcohol use in Sweden (Holmberg & Enander, 2005; Scheffer Lindgren & Renck,2008a), although some affirm the connection (Caman et al., 2017). Meanwhile, individual-ism has previously been highlighted as potentially contributing toward IPVAW in a study point-ing to conflicts between norms of independence and expected gender roles in Finland (Flinck et al.,2005), while Agevall (2012) discusses how the nuclear family norm can increase vulnerabil-ity by reducing social insight and support. While the importance of the management of emotions and impulses has been frequently emphasized (Dutton, 1997; Shorey et al., 2011), attention has however not often been paid to conditions specific to Sweden or the Nordic countries.
What is more, while individualism, lack of management of emotions and alcohol consumption patterns were posited as conducive to IPVAW in Sweden, they were also noted to interweave with aspects of gender (in)equality. Worth noting here, on the topic of alcohol and gender, is a study from the United States showing a link between the use of alcohol in the context of IPVAW and expressions of masculinity emphasizing dominance (Peralta et al.,2010). In brief, the discus-sions about explanatory factors other than gender equality pointed, once more, toward the com-plex relevance of gender (in)equality for IPVAW in Sweden.
Limitations
This study has its limitations. Firstly, the self-sampling of participants may have affected the results. As the concept of the Nordic Paradox was outlined in the invitation letter to potential participants, it is possible that several professionals with a particular interest in links between
IPVAW and gender equality volunteered to take part. Secondly, the outline of the Nordic Paradox at the beginning of the focus groups and interviews, and the interview questions, framed the discussions and may thus have influenced the participants’ responses. The moderator strived, however, to maintain an open discussion and to allow for space for the participants’ free reflec-tions and associareflec-tions.
Furthermore, while an aim was to recruit participants working with IPVAW from various per-spectives—and professionals from different organizations did participate—a majority represented the social services. A larger number of professionals working in, e.g., the judicial system may have yielded some additional perspectives. Another limitation lies in the skewed gender division, as only three of the participants were men. However, 80% of those working in the Swedish health and social services sectors in 2017 were women (SCB,2017).
The intention was to recruit professionals from different organizations to each focus group, to stimulate discussion encompassing various perspectives (Stewart et al., 2007). While this proved difficult, and some groups primarily consisted of colleagues from the same work place, animated discussions were indeed held while the data were also collected in the setting where participants experienced the issue (Creswell, 2007). The group size of 3–5 participants was rather small, but
suitable for this study as most participants worked closely with the topic and thus had a great deal to contribute to the discussions (Krueger & Casey,2015).
As noted in the methods section, at two points in time manuscript drafts were sent to partici-pants, to provide an opportunity for correction or discussion of any interpretations (e.g., Frambach et al.,2013). While no participants expressed disagreement with or questions regarding the study results, few responded with any comments. This represents a limitation of the valid-ation process.
Furthermore, when discussing prevalence levels of IPV, and conceptualizations of the issue, it can be important to clarify which type of IPV that is in focus (Ali et al., 2016). Distinguishing between intimate partner terrorism, violent resistance and situational couple violence, Johnson (2008) notes, for example, that intimate partner terrorism predominates in cases that come to the attention of public agencies including women’s shelters, while a large share of the violence dis-closed in surveys is likely to fall under the situational couple violence category (Johnson,2011). It is not impossible that differences exist between prevalence levels of different types of violence across the EU. In fact, in a study of the FRA survey results (2014), Nevala (2017) finds that in countries with higher levels of gender equality, women indicated lower levels of violence catego-rized as coercive control or intimate terrorism. While this issue was not discussed by the partici-pants of this study, it represents an important question warranting further qualitative and survey research.
In Conclusion: Practice Implications
While this study does not provide a straightforward explanation of the Nordic Paradox, as dis-cussed or agreed upon by the participating IPVAW professionals, it illuminates the complexities of gender (in)equality and its links with IPVAW in Sweden, as debated by the participants in relation to the Nordic Paradox. This highlights the importance of remaining vigilant about the variety of ways in which dynamics of power inequality can find an expression in contexts of IPVAW, and about how assumptions of gender equality may create specific obstacles to the pre-vention and handling of IPVAW. Notably, participants suggested that, in Sweden, despite or per-haps because of the presence of relative gender equality, tendencies toward backlash, and toward othering IPVAW and rendering the issue unseen, remain.
These findings are important not least the current time, where expressions of a backlash against women’s rights (EU, 2018) coincide with a co-existence of approaches to IPVAW, includ-ing a drive toward more individually-oriented perspectives and gender neutrality. While the latter
has its merits, in enabling a move beyond reductionistic assumptions of perpetrators and victims, and associated limitations in the prevention and addressing of IPV, it should not encompass the washing out of focus on and sensitivity to the importance of power dynamics for IPVAW. In conclusion, efforts toward the prevention and addressing of IPVAW should encompass recogni-tion of the complex and dynamic impacts of gender inequalities.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank the IPVAW professionals who took time to participate in this study. In addition, the authors thank Prof Juan Merlo for valuable contributions.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
FUNDING
This work was supported by the Swedish Research Council under Grant 2017-03093.
ORCID
Maria Wemrell http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3186-9054
Marisol Lila http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0522-7461
Enrique Gracia http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0514-2983
Anna-Karin Ivert http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7749-9549
REFERENCES
Agevall, C. (2012). Love and Violence. Victimised Women’s accounts of experiences of Violence [Våldet och k€arleken:
våldsutsatta kvinnors begripligg€orande av sina erfarenheter]. [Doctoral thesis]. Lund University.
Ali, P. A., Dhingra, K., & McGarry, J. (2016). A literature review of intimate partner violence and its classifications.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 31, 16–25.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2016.06.008
Alsaker, K., Moen, B., Baste, V., & Morken, T. (2016). How has living with intimate partner violence affected the work situation? A qualitative study among abused women in Norway. Journal of Family Violence, 31(4),
479–487.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-016-9806-2
Archer, J. (2006). Cross-cultural differences in physical aggression between partners: A social-role analysis.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(2), 133–153.https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1002_3
Bjelland, H. (2014). En voldsom maktbalanse? En Studie av Relativ Makt og Forekomst av Partnervold. Sos Tidsskr,
22(1), 51–74. Retrieved from https://www-idunn-no.ludwig.lub.lu.se/st/2014/01/en_voldsom_maktbalanse_en_
studie_av_relativ_makt_og_foreko
BRÅ. (2014). Crimes in intimate relationships. A national survey [Brott i n€ara relationer. En nationell kartl€aggning].
The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention
BRÅ. (2020). Homicide and manslaughter [Mord och dråp]. The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention.
https://www.bra.se/statistik/statistik-utifran-brottstyper/mord-och-drap.html
Br€annvall, M. (2016). Liberation and obstacles: About police reportation when women move away from men’s
vio-lence in intimate relationships [Frig€orelse med f€orhinder: om polisanm€alan n€ar kvinnor tar sig ur m€ans våld i
n€ara relationer]. [Doctoral thesis]. Malm€o University.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2),
77–101.https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Bruno, L. (2018). Financial oppression and post-separation child positions in Sweden. European Journal of Social
Work, 21(2), 181–192.https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2017.1286296
Caman, S., Kristiansson, M., Granath, S., & Sturup, J. (2017). Trends in rates and characteristics of intimate
part-ner homicides between 1990 and 2013. Journal of Criminal Justice, 49, 14–21.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.
