Logo: to the web site of Uppsala University

In Sweden, as in many modern European and international democracies, ways of governing have shifted in several ways, with profound implications for (democratic) education policy and practice (cf. Lindgren et al, 2020; Murphy, 2022). Among changes such as comprehensive marketization, juridification, as a mode of welfare regulation, is a central feature (e.g. Novak, 2018; Rosén et al., 2021). The juridification of education is visible by a shift from collective social rights to individual and legally assured rights, with a growth of legal complaint systems (e.g. Carlbaum, 2016; Novak, 2018). In Swedish education, this shift has been specifically evident regarding issues of equality and diversity.

Intertwined with a development of expansion of EU-law on discrimination and equal treatment, Sweden in 2006 introduced a legal policy forbidding discrimination, harassment[1] and other kinds of degrading treatment (here called “equal treatment”). This policy includes possibilities to report incidents to the Child and School Student Representative and the Equality Ombudsman who can represent students in national courts (SFS 2008:567; SFS 2010:800). Such endeavors – in the name of democracy – are difficult to question (cf. Rosén, 2023). 

However, as has been discussed by Teubner (1987) and Habermas (1987), juridification as means of democratization may challenge ethical and political qualities of social spheres, such as in education (cf. Habermas, 1987; Teubner, 1987).  In similar ways, Wendy Brown (2000) has pointed to the paradox inherent in rights, as both enabling and challenging emancipation and equity. These dilemmas and tensions have also been discussed in the growing body of, so far mainly Nordic, empirical research on juridification of education (cf. Karseth och Møller, 2018; Lindgren et al 2020; Murphy, 2022; Novak, 2018; Rosén et al 2021; Rosén and Arneback, 2021; Stefkovich, 2014). 

Against this backdrop one can conclude that juridification as a process of democratization of education is a complex contemporary phenomenon. As such I argue there is a need for a better understanding of the consequences for democratic education. In this presentation I intend to elaborate on what juridification may enable and challenge in relation to democratic education, by the use of the Swedish policy case of equal treatment, theories on juridification and law (Habermas, 1987; Teubner, 1987; Brännström, 2009; Brown, 2000) as well as earlier research on juridification of education (Arneback, 2012; Carlbaum, 2016, 2017; Cooper, 2019; Bergh & Arneback, 2016; Murphy, 2022. As a result, I would like to discuss how we can place ourselves to think both with and against – as well as beyond – juridification of democratic education. Lastly, I would like to open up for a discussion on possible theoretical paths for further research, which may combine insights and theories from the fields of democratic education and philosophy of education, as well as research on juridification of education.

 [1] Whereas discrimination concerns structural disadvantages, harassment concerns interpersonal degrading treatment – ones och repeatedly, discriminatory grounds of gender, transgender identity or expression, ethnicity, religion or other belief, disability, sexual orientation, or age” (Chap. 1, 4§, our translation)