Inte mot min natur. Diskurser om sjukt och friskt vid tiden för avkriminalisering av homosexualitet i Sverige.

Abstract

This essay examines how a disease discourse of homosexuality became the dominant discourse that pushed the debate on the decriminalization of homosexuality in Sweden forward. The essay shows that arguments for homosexuals’ right to personal freedom and subjective happiness, constituted a kind of rift in the discourse during the 1930’s debate. Three source texts are analysed using discourse analysis, with particular focus on a scientific appendix to Vilhelm Lundstedt’s parliamentary motion from 1933. Lundstedt’s scientific appendix hasn’t previously been examamined, and the present essay therefore contributes new perspectives. The essay analyses how the diagnostic symptoms of homosexuality in the medical discourse, became the only possible argument for decriminalisation of homosexuality, where Magnus Hirschfeld’s theory that homosexuality is genetic and innate became dominant. The analysis shows how notions of sexuality are rooted in the contemporary belief in science and the desire to classify people according to notions of mental function. My conclusions highlight how the scientific appendix’ challenge of the psychiatric discourse points to an incipient discourse for liberation and rights.