No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The 1987 Swedish Family Law Reform
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2019
Extract
A major family law reform was implemented in Sweden during 1987. A new marriage code was enacted. Certain limited rights were granted to cohabitants. A special law protecting the right of homosexual cohabitants was adopted. And consequently, the Inheritance Code and a number of other laws had to be amended to meet the requirement of the above mentioned legislation.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1989 by The Institute for International Legal Information
References
1. The new Marriage Code, Svensk Författningssamling (SFS 1987: 230), replaced the 1920 Marriage Code.Google Scholar
2. Statens Offentliga Utredningar (SOU 1972: 41) pp. 57–66.Google Scholar
3. SOU 1972: 41.Google Scholar
4. SFS 1973: 645.Google Scholar
5. Id. 1978: 845.Google Scholar
6. See Note 1.Google Scholar
7. See infra, p. 223.Google Scholar
8. SOU 1972: 41, pp. 137–139.Google Scholar
9. See Note 1, chapter 2.Google Scholar
10. Id. chapter 3.Google Scholar
11. Id. Chapter 4.Google Scholar
12. SOU 1972: 41, pp. 145–157.Google Scholar
13. See Note 1, chapter 5 on Divorce.Google Scholar
14. SOU 1972: 41, pp. 158–169.Google Scholar
15. See Note 1, chapter 6.Google Scholar
16. See supra, p. 220.Google Scholar
17. Rules describing marital property and marital home are stipulated in the Marriage Code, chapter 7.Google Scholar
18. See infra, p. 225. Note that the rules governing the right to marital home are likewise applicable to a marriage that was in effect before 1921. However, the right to the marital home is granted only to the surviving spouse, if the marriage is dissolved by death. (Law on Promulgation of the Marriage Code, SFS 1987: 788).Google Scholar
19. These rules are stipulated in chapter 9 of the Code.Google Scholar
20. The relevant provisions are prescribed in chapter 17 of the Code.Google Scholar
21. See Note 1, chapter 11.Google Scholar
22. See Note 1, chapter 12Google Scholar
23. Government Proposition 1986/87: 1, pp. 44–48 and 184-190.Google Scholar
24. See Note 1, chapter 13.Google Scholar
25. A study of family relations in the nothern parts of Sweden in the period between the two world wars, indicates that a large number of children were born out of wedlock. The parents of these children lived together almost their entire adult life (Löfgren, U. Familj och Hushåll-Slåkt och Äktenskap, Lund, 1972).Google Scholar
26. Note that the rules governing the custody of children are stipulated in the Parent and Children Code. In principle, the custody of a child born out of wedlock is entrusted to the mother. However, in connection with an amendment which was made to the family law in 1974, the father of a child born out of wedlock may upon the court's decision be entrusted with the custody, if it is deemed to be in the child's best interest. By a mutual agreement, both parents can have joint custody.Google Scholar
27. See supra, p. 219.Google Scholar
28. SOU 1972: 41, pp. 57–60.Google Scholar
29. Id. pp. 89–101 and 225-254.Google Scholar
30. Id. p. 41 and 243 ff.Google Scholar
31. SFS 1973: 651.Google Scholar
32. SOU 1972: 41, pp. 243 ff.Google Scholar
33. The Committee submitted its final report in 1981, see supra, p. 220.Google Scholar
34. SOU 1981: 85, p. 622.Google Scholar
35. SOU 1978: 55.Google Scholar
36. Id. 1981: 85, pp. 121–161.Google Scholar
37. See supra, pp. 224–225.Google Scholar
38. SOU 1981: 85, pp. 420–430.Google Scholar
39. Id. p. 205Google Scholar
40. Id. p. 206. The base amount changes, whenever a certain minimum changes occurs in the Consumers’ Price Index.Google Scholar
41. SFS 1987: 232.Google Scholar
42. See supra, p. 225.Google Scholar
43. SOU 1984: 63, p. 3.Google Scholar
44. Id. 29-31.Google Scholar
45. Id. 33-237.Google Scholar
46. Id. 273-274.Google Scholar
47. Id. 271-280.Google Scholar
48. SFS 1987: 610.Google Scholar
49. See supra, p. 229.Google Scholar
50. Some members of the Commission were of the opinion that homosexuals should be able to enter into a legal marriage and be entitled to adopt children. The Commission, however, decided against such measures. The Commission said that present-day value judgments with regard to marriage are so firmly rooted that it is hardly possible to speak of marriage between two individuals of the same sex. (SOU 1984; 63, p. 275).Google Scholar
51. Lagutskottets Betänkande (The Judiciary Committee of the Parliament), 1986/87: 28, pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
52. SFS 1987: 813.Google Scholar
53. SFS 1981: 359.Google Scholar
54. See supra, pp. 224–225.Google Scholar