How rape myths are used in Swedish child rape court cases in comparison with adults : A critical discourse analysis

A commonality in rape trials is that the legal system is colored by myths and norms – more specifically ‘rape myths’. These myths includes the perception of ‘men as more sex needing’, ‘rape victim brought the offense on themselves’ and so forth. A new law on sex crimes was introduced in 2005 in Sweden in order to create a stronger protection when it comes to rape and sexual assaults of different kinds – especially the removal of violence in child rape cases. Previous research conclude that rape myths are still routinely used at trial in adult rape and sexual assault cases. Rape myths in court often relates to a specific ‘rational’ behavior as the ‘normal’ or ‘right’ way to act, which relates to a masculinized view of reasoning colored by the patriarchal society. The overall purpose of this paper is to examine how rape myths appear in trials involving children; if children are viewed in the same way as adults according to these myths in rape cases – or differently, and how these myths are manifested. Also, a certain focus is on gender similarities and differences when it comes to rape myths. The paper is based upon 20 Swedish court cases from 2005 to 2017. Five cases within each group of victims: girls, boys, women and men. The thesis uses critical discourse analysis along with feminist studies to analyze these rape myths. This study shows that rape myths also are used in child rape cases, and thus, that children are no exception. Moreover, victimized females are often found in a disadvantaged position within court, as opposed to males. Girls seem to be most disadvantaged due to their position as both young and female. The results further indicates that legislation can be a useful tool to create rape myth busters