This review of honour-based criminal legislation in the Nordic countries, as it exists in spring 2025, shows a certain degree of consistency between the countries and autonomous regions as well as a number of significant differences. Both the similarities and differences can be seen in the light of Lebedeva’s comparative policy analysis that accompanies this paper. It should also be noted that most of the legislation highlighted is relatively new and that political debate and policy work on proposals for further legislation is ongoing in several of the countries and regions.
Two Nordic countries stand out in terms of the comprehensiveness of their criminal legislation. Denmark (including the Faroe Islands) stands out as specifying the largest number of acts as expressly punishable. In Denmark/the Faroe Islands, all the acts discussed in this study are punishable outside of conversion attempts. Sweden stands out as having more generalised legislation for repeated violations that can be attributed to honour motives. This implies that Swedish legal actors are dependent on legal precedent established by court decisions, through the development of case law, to interpret both what can be attributed to honour and the extent to which honour can be assumed to have played a role in motivating specific acts.
All countries and autonomous regions (except Greenland) criminalise forced marriage and child marriage, with relatively strict penalties compared to similar coercion-based crimes. All also include supplementary provisions in marriage legislation or equivalent that allows for the annulment of both child marriages and marriages entered into under duress. This shows that in Nordic custom, marriage is considered an agreement entered into under equal conditions between two individuals, rather than part of a more complex and unequal power structure. It also highlights the ambition of legislation to mitigate the legal effects of an act of coercion as far as possible.
All countries and autonomous regions (except Greenland) also criminalise female genital cutting. The legal provisions for this generally appear in connection with legal provisions for aggravated assault – with the exception of Sweden, which criminalises female genital cutting through older specific legislation.
Some of the countries and autonomous regions stand out for criminalising specific acts. Norway and Iceland criminalise conversion attempts, measures that impact an individual’s right to determine their gender identity and sexual orientation. Such laws aim to protect the freedom of individuals to define their own identity without influence or coercion to conform to heteronormative gender roles.
Denmark criminalises both wearing a veil and forcing a person to wear a veil. Criminalising the wearing of a veil can be seen as limiting women’s freedom and their right to express their religious and cultural identity, among other things. Criminalising conversion attempts is a relatively clear statement against exerting pressure and/or other forms of coercion against people who are considered to deviate from heteronormative ideas of gender and sexuality. The ban on compulsory veiling, on the other hand, can be seen both as protection for women specifically and as a clear statement against specific groups for whom wearing clothing that fully or partially covers the face is customary. Here, the wording and justifications in preparatory work and other policy texts is key to analysing which values are central in each Nordic country or autonomous region.
Finally, on a more general level, it can be noted that laws that specifically criminalise honour-based acts are relatively new in the Nordic countries. Most of the laws have been enacted in the countries and autonomous regions during the 2020s, and this publication’s policy analysis indicates that policy work on honour-based violence is still relatively intensive, especially in Denmark/the Faroe Islands, Norway and Sweden. It is therefore reasonable to expect the introduction of further legislation or adjustments to existing legislation. This study should therefore be regarded as a perishable commodity in need of continuous updating if it is to serve as up-to-date support for both law enforcement authorities and research concerned with specified honour crimes.
The focus of this study is limited to current criminal legislation in the Nordic countries, while a comprehensive range of measures against specified honour crimes can be found in social welfare legislation and, to some extent, in migration law. These areas – and others – should be included in future, more comprehensive reviews.