PROCEDURAL JUSTICE IN PRACTICE - Perceived Fairness and Its Implications on Legal Legitimacy, Compliance, Belonging and Well-Being within the Swedish Asylum System.

Abstract

Fair and transparent asylum procedures are fundamental to ensure justice, legitimacy and trust in migration governance. While there is considerable research on migration policies, institutional trust, credibility assessment and the effect of migration decisions on asylum seekers, little is known about how asylum seekers themselves perceive fairness, particularly in post-2015 Sweden. This thesis examines how asylum seekers perceive procedural fairness and decision outcomes within the Swedish asylum system and how these perceptions might influence their trust in legal institutions, compliance with law(s), sense of belonging, and psychological well-being. Drawing on qualitative semi-structured interviews, the study applies a deductive thematic approach focused on three dimensions of procedural justice (voice, dignity and consistency) to capture applicants’ lived experiences of the process. The findings indicate that the majority of the respondents perceive the asylum process as unjust, characterised by a culture of disbelief, and the Swedish Migration Agency (SMA) and its decision as illegitimate. Notably, all respondents expressed respect and willingness to comply with Swedish law in general, separating their distrust of the SMA from the broader Swedish legal system. The study further concludes that, although outcome favorability strongly shapes perceptions of fairness and legitimacy, it is not entirely decisive. The way in which the process unfolds has significant implications for perceived fairness, compliance, and psychological well-being, as some residence permit holders viewed the system as unjust, due to disbelief and perceived arbitrariness in decision outcomes.