Renegotiating the Swedish child welfare system through claims to represent children

Abstract

This study addresses rights-based claims to represent children. Applying Saward’s theory of the representative claim, it analyses a Swedish Government Report to explore how actors are constructed and positioned through such claims. The analysis suggests that Swedish children’s rights organisations (NGOs) position themselves as representatives of children. These claims centrally depict children as having been let down by public authorities, particularly child welfare services. The article argues that the claims studied reflect an individualised approach to children’s rights in Sweden. Furthermore, the article offers methodological reflections on how children’s voices are used in constructing claims to represent them.

Introduction and aim

Children’s participation and voices, as norms reinforced by the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), have come to symbolise democratic governance and political legitimacy in modern welfare states (cf. James, 2007; Josefsson et al., 2023). In response, governments have established a variety of institutional arrangements—such as child and youth councils or ombudspersons—to ensure that children’s voices are heard and e.g., incorporated into policy processes (Wall and Dar, 2011). These developments have given rise to a growing field of actors—including NGOs, corporations, and state agencies—who claim to represent children at various political levels. As more actors claim to speak on behalf of children, representing children has become a contested political space, where the authority to represent children is negotiated, challenged, and sometimes conflicted (Josefsson et al., 2023).

This study examines claims to represent children that have emerged in Sweden in connection with the Swedish state’s consideration of incorporating the Third Optional Protocol to the CRC. The study examines how these claims involve a repositioning of other institutions mandated to represent children—the Swedish child welfare services and the Swedish child ombudsman. For an international audience, Sweden—traditionally regarded as a progressive state in matters of children’s welfare—may serve as a particularly illustrative example of how conceptions of children’s welfare and the rhetoric of children’s rights have moved in the direction of an individualised rights perspective (cf. Reynaert et al., 2015; Sandin, 2012), and how this development is tied to representational authority. The Swedish example illustrates how claims to represent children—and the ways in which such claims are articulated—may be obscured by a broadly accepted consensus on the importance of children’s voices, participation and rights. The study underscores the need to scrutinise who is making these claims and to reflect methodologically on how they are constructed, as such claims carry political undertones and, as mentioned, may involve the renegotiation of institutional roles—processes that, ultimately, may shape children’s actual opportunities to have their rights fulfilled.

The study examines rights-based claims to represent children, as they appear in a Swedish Government Official Report with a legislative proposal, called Förbättrade möjligheter för barn att utkräva sina rättigheter enligt Barnkonventionen [Improved Opportunities for Children to Enforce their Rights According to the Convention on the Rights of the Child] (Statens Offentliga Utredningar, 2023:40) (hereafter the report). Formally, the report concerns the incorporation of the Third Optional Protocol to the CRC into Swedish law. This protocol introduces a communications procedure enabling children to submit complaints regarding perceived violations of their rights under the Convention. In this context a new actor – the ‘independent children’s representatives’ (Sw. oberoende barnombud) – is proposed to be introduced as a part of the Swedish national welfare system in support of children. These representatives, anticipated to be drawn from non-governmental organisations (NGOs, operating at a national level) and state-funded, are envisaged to champion the interest of children and ensure the societal fulfilment of children’s rights.

When new claims to represent children emerge in the Swedish context, they may indicate a repositioning and renegotiation of roles and relations between children, NGOs, and other institutions mandated to represent children.

Drawing on a thematic analysis of the report, informed by political theory on the representative claim (cf. Saward, 2010, 2020), this study seeks to identify the actors involved in claims to represent children as articulated in the report, and to analyse how these actors are constructed and positioned through these claims. Furthermore, the study aims to situate these claims within the broader context of other actors mandated to represent children in Sweden, with reference to historical shifts in the country’s approach to child welfare and rights. Specifically, the study asks: Who is the actor claiming to represent children in the report? Who are the children referred to in these claims, and which other actors are involved? How are these actors constructed, and positioned through the claims to represent children?

The study responds to the call for research that uses representation as a concept to deepen the discussion about the intricate interplay between children’s rights, portrayals of children, and politics (cf. Josefsson et al., 2023).

Previous research

The following section provides a brief overview of research relevant to this study. Beginning with the issue of children’s political representation, the overview seeks to shed light on child rights actors, such as ICRIs and NGOs, as well as their relationship to the drafting processes of the CRC and its Third Optional Protocol, both internationally and in Sweden. The Swedish child protection system is also briefly outlined. Finally, the section engages with research that has problematised the children’s rights discourse, for example through historical contextualisation, as well as studies that critically examine the normative imperatives surrounding children’s participation.

Children’s political and rights-based representation

Children’s representation in society and politics has taken on new defining features as children’s rights have become an internationally accepted and guiding principle (cf. Josefsson et al., 2023; Wall and Dar, 2011). Since children lack the right to vote—and thereof the possibility of direct electoral representation – children have been referred to more indirect forms of political representation, such as through voice and participation. As normatively charged principles, endorsed and reinforced by the CRC and the children’s rights movement, the ideals of children’s voices and participation have significantly influenced research, policy and practice (Josefsson et al., 2023; Wall and Dar, 2011). Against this backdrop governments worldwide have sought to establish national institutional structures aimed at representing children’s voices and participation on political issues such as policy-making. It includes varying degrees of indirect representation e.g., through different forms of child committees that are heard and consulted by parliaments (Wall and Dar, 2011).

One example of children’s rights-based representation is the so-called Independent Children’s Rights Institutions (ICRIs), sometimes referred to as children’s ombudsmen or commissioners, tasked to promote, protect and monitor children’s rights at the national level. ICRIs take on different institutional forms across countries; while they are commonly state-funded, they operate with a certain degree of institutional independence. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (the Committee) has asserted that ICRIs are essential for the national implementation of the CRC. Following the adoption of the CRC, numerous ICRIs were established across Europe during the 1990s, with their global expansion accelerating after the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child recommended their establishment under Article 4 in 2002 (Lux and Gran, 2022).

The establishment of a complaints mechanism under the CRC has been described as the Convention’s final complement. Although the idea was raised during the original drafting process, it was initially deemed unfeasible due to the Convention’s broad and diverse scope of rights. The proposal was later revived by NGOs and ultimately endorsed by the Committee as the Third Optional Protocol (De Beco, 2013). There were hopes among NGOs that the adoption of the Third Optional Protocol would grant NGOs, ICRIs, and other child representatives the mandate to appeal perceived state violations of children’s rights to the Committee. During the drafting process, however, these expectations were partly curtailed, excluding so-called collective complaints that did not identify an individual child victim (Buck and Wabwile, 2013).

As indicated, NGOs have a long history of involvement in children’s rights issues at various political levels (cf. Hanson, 2023; Josefsson et al., 2023). NGOs played an influential role in setting the agenda during the drafting of the CRC and its Optional Protocols, and has gained recognition as experts and monitors of state compliance with children’s rights (cf., Türkelli and Vandenhole, 2012; Josefsson, 2023). At the international political level, speaking for and representing different groups has been recognised as an established method and strategy to gain influence and power on the global political stage (cf. Hanson, 2023; Hahn and Holzscheiter, 2013).

Scholars across disciplines have highlighted how the rise of rights-based rhetoric has led to children’s situations increasingly being framed in terms of individual entitlements and legal frameworks. At the international political level, there is broad consensus that access to legal instruments and to justice is central to the realisation of children’s rights (cf. Reynaert et al., 2015; Tchermalykh, 2023). At a more practical level, the political and academic imperatives to give voice to children and promote their participation have been problematised—e.g., with regard to the lack of reflection on the relational and contextual conditions under which children’s voices are articulated and heard. Both methodological and ethical concerns have been raised regarding children’s involvement in studies, as well as in political and legal processes, where children’s participation and voices are often oversimplified and used as an instrument for various agendas (cf. Gallacher and Gallagher, 2008; James, 2007; Josefsson, 2022; Spyrou, 2011). James (2007) argues that children’s voices have come to symbolise authenticity and innocence, and that children often are presented as witnesses of truth. However, such notions risk obscuring the ideological foundations and conditions under which children’s voices are articulated. This, in turn, opens up the possibility of children’s voices being instrumentalised by actors with political agendas. Moreover, it has been noted that the way children’s voices are presented risks homogenising them, thereby obscuring their diversity (James, 2007; Spyrou, 2011).

Children’s representation in Sweden

Sweden has often been regarded as a progressive welfare state, with children’s rights and protection positioned as central to its development (Sandin, 2012, 2023). The Swedish welfare system is commonly characterised as universalistic, providing free, and subsidised services to all children and families. The child protection system developed in parallel with–and as an integral part of–the broader Swedish welfare state. It is locally administered by the municipalities through child welfare services, which are obligated to assess a child’s needs when parental care, together with general services and benefits, proves insufficient. According to the Swedish Social Services Act, child welfare services hold ultimate responsibility for ensuring that children receive the support necessary for their safety and favourable development. While the Swedish child welfare system primarily offers support on a voluntary basis, it is also mandated to apply coercive measures when necessary to protect children. Like those in the other Nordic countries, the Swedish system has been characterised as family service-oriented, emphasising early interventions—often through therapeutic approaches and close cooperation with families (cf. Hestbæk et al., 2023; Höjer and Pösö, 2023).

Sweden has been regarded as having played a central role in the drafting of the CRC, with NGOs — most notably Save the Children Sweden — significantly shaping the country’s stance. During the drafting process, Sweden’s focus shifted from welfare-based approaches to a more global concern for vulnerable children, such as those affected by armed conflict (Lindqvist, 2022). More generally, and from a historical perspective, Sweden’s official position on children’s rights has been described as having evolved over time. During the development of the welfare state, children’s living conditions were largely understood as a matter of general welfare policy. However, with the adoption of the CRC and the diffusion of children’s rights discourse, the Swedish approach has gradually shifted toward framing children’s rights as individual entitlements. This reflects a more individualised understanding of children’s needs—linked to both a delegation of responsibility from the state to public authorities and a process of juridification, whereby decisions made by authorities can be subject to legal review (cf. Sandin, 2012).

As the CRC was deemed to be in accordance with existing Swedish legislation, its ratification in 1990 was largely uncontroversial. In line with Swedish legal tradition, incorporation was not initially pursued and remained absent from the political agenda. However, in response to pressure from the Committee, as well as from Swedish child rights NGOs, the CRC was formally incorporated into Swedish domestic law in 2020 (Thorburn Stern, 2019). Following Sweden’s ratification of the CRC, the Swedish parliament established an ICRI, the Children’s Ombudsman, with the mandate to represent children as a group and advocate for their rights in social policy and legislation in interactions with the government (cf. Sandin, 2023; Koren, 1995).

Sweden has a long tradition of NGOs and philanthropic organisations offering services and advocating for children. As the work of philanthropic organisations was, to some extent, taken over by public agencies during the development of the welfare state, the interactions between NGOs and the state came to shape the organisational space for civil society actors focused on children’s needs and welfare (cf. Lundström, 2001; Nehlin, 2009; Sandin, 2012, 2023). Building on this historical relationship, Sweden also reflects the broader international trend in which children’s voices and the act of listening to children have become important political goals—particularly as children’s rights emerged as a distinct policy area in the 1990s (cf. Josefsson, 2022). Within this context, several Swedish NGOs, aligned with the international children’s rights movement, have incorporated children’s rights into their ideological agendas. In Sweden, about 20 organisations use the designation ‘children’s rights organisation’ whereof several maintain close collaboration with the Swedish government and are consulted as experts on issues related to children’s rights. Some of these organisations also provide services to groups of children that partially overlap with those in contact with the Swedish child welfare system. These services include acting as ombudsmen, as well as supporting and representing children in their interactions with public authorities, including child welfare services (Nylén, 2024).

Theory: The representative claim

Theoretically, this paper aligns with the constructionist turn in political theory on representation (e.g., Brito Vieira, 2019; Disch et al., 2019; Saward, 2010, 2020) and specifically Saward’s (2010, 2020) recognised theorisation on the representative claim. This perspective transcends traditional views on representation as solely electoral and acknowledges a multitude of actors seeking legitimacy to represent different groups (Saward, 2010).

Broadly, representation has been described to aim at bringing someone/something absent (the represented) into being perceived as present (Saward, 2020). More specifically, to claim to represent means to assert knowledge of the interests of a group of people and the capacity to speak for this group. To claim representation has been described as a process imbued with construction, identity-creating and positioning of actors or entities (Alcoff, 1991; Saward, 2010, 2020).

Saward (2010) has proposed five dimensions involved in the process of the representative claim. ‘The maker of representations (M) puts forward a subject (S) which stands for an object (O) that is related to a referent (R) and is offered to an audience (A).’ (Saward, 2010: 36).

That is, representation requires that (1) the maker, an initiator (e.g., a spin-doctor) puts forward (2) the subject (the representative) as a bearer of certain features and characteristics that connect to a specific group of people that is to be represented, (3) the object (the represented). To achieve a connection between the subject (the representative) and the object (the represented) that can be perceived as trustworthy, both these agents need to be talked about and thereby constructed into entities with specific traits and qualities. Constructing the object (the represented) into a specific group includes naming, depictions and portrayals of the represented that are to be distinguished from (4) the referent. The referent refers to the larger group of people that precedes the construction of the object. Representative claims need authorisation by (5) an audience. Without an audience that accepts the construction put forward as trustworthy and genuine, the representative claims lack legitimacy (Saward, 2010, 2020).

For example, in the case of representing children, an initiator (the maker) brings forward a specific actor to be viewed as a representative (the subject) for a particular group of children (the object) due to certain characteristics. This construction is presented and seeks legitimacy from an audience (the audience). It is worth noting that the maker and the representative can be the same actor, meaning that it is possible to present oneself as a representative for a specific group of people (cf. Saward, 2010).

In addition, a representative claim that is connected to an established legitimate institutional structure can contribute to the subject being perceived as authorised and legitimate. However, at the same time, the subject needs a sufficient measure of independence to be perceived and accepted as a genuine and authentic representative of the object (Saward, 2010).

Furthermore, the context in which the representative claim arises is significant as it conditions how representative claims are received and perceived (Saward, 2010). Specific histories, settings, environments, and agendas influence the possibility of making credible claims to represent (Saward, 2020). As Alcoff (1991) posits, the speaker’s social location and identity significantly influence the legitimacy and impact of their claims to represent. This underscores the importance of, not just the content of what is said, but also the context or discourse from where the claims to represent arise.

In this study, the theory of representative claims serves to identify the actors involved in the claims to represent children in Sweden and to shed light on how these actors are constructed through these claims.

Material and method

The empirical base for this study is a Swedish Government Official Report called Förbättrade möjligheter för barn att utkräva sina rättigheter enligt barnkonventionen SOU 2023:40 [Improved Opportunities for Children to Claim their Rights According to the Convention on the Rights of the Child], presented in August 2023. The text was chosen for an in-depth analysis, as it can be considered a contemporary official Swedish document with explicit claims to represent children. The report distinguishes itself from other Swedish Government Official Reports by stating that it intends to present children’s opinions on the issues the report addresses. Furthermore, the report concerns a central question of our time regarding how the welfare state should address the imperative of participation and ensure that children’s voices are heard.

This kind of text—a Government Official Report—is a preparatory document that forms part of the Swedish legislative process. A Government Official Report is politically commissioned with instructions formulated by the Swedish government. These kinds of reports compile and analyse a specific topic and include proposals for legislation or changes in policy. In a subsequent step, the government will potentially respond to the recommendations presented in the Government Official Report by enacting legislation. Therefore, there is no guarantee that the proposals outlined in the report will be implemented. However, arguably, this aspect, namely, the document’s status as a proposal seeking approval, renders the report particularly suitable as empirical material for examining representative claims.

The Swedish government has, according to standard procedure and grounded in the constitution, commissioned an investigator (in this instance a magistrate) to investigate and take a position on a matter. In this case, the directives include three issues: (1) incorporation of the Third Optional Protocol of the CRC, (2) ‘to propose measures that ensure children’s opportunities to complain and enforce their rights according to the CRC in Swedish legislation…’ and (3) ‘… to review the possibilities for the state to contribute to the establishment of children’s representatives within civil society organisations.’ (The report, p. 25). The investigator appoints a team of experts, in this case, e.g., from academia, NGOs and government agencies such as the Swedish National Courts Administration and the Children’s Ombudsman.

In order to present children’s views on the issue of independent children’s representatives, three NGOs, so-called Swedish children’s rights organisations, have been appointed by the investigation to conduct interviews with 34 children about their experiences of children’s rights organisations as well as Swedish public authorities. Additionally, more detailed stories of 11 children are presented in the report under the heading “My story (the child’s name)”, each story being about one page long. In total, the report is 777 pages long.

An initial reading suggested that claims to represent children constitute a central feature of the text. The five dimensions of the representative claim formulated by Saward (2010) were found suitable to be used as themes in an analysis of the report. Therefore, the themes were generated deductively (cf. Nowell et al., 2017), based on the theoretical framework provided by Saward (2010). After familiarising with the text through several read-throughs, the text was coded by identifying sections of the text concerning representation. Thereafter the codes were analysed, and categorised into the mentioned themes (cf. Nowell et al., 2017).

After a short introduction suggesting the context from which the claims to represent children arise, the analysis is structured in accordance with the themes, that is, the five aspects of the representative claim: the maker, the subject, the object, the referent and the audience.

All quotes from the report are translated from Swedish by the author. In the report, the designation ‘independent children’s ombudsperson’ is used. In this article, for the sake of clarity, this has been translated to ‘independent children’s representative’. Additionally, the term ‘civil society organisation’ used in the report has been translated to ‘NGO’ in the presentation.

Results and analysis

The context of the representative claims

As mentioned, the report originates from the Swedish government’s consideration of incorporating the Third Optional Protocol to the CRC into Swedish law. The report adopts a positive stance on incorporation, describing it as a means to strengthen children’s rights in Sweden— a logical next step in implementing the CRC and essential for enhancing children’s opportunities to have their rights fulfilled in Sweden (the report, p. 269). Against this backdrop of legislative efforts to strengthen children’s rights under the CRC at the individual level, the proposal for independent children’s representatives in Sweden is introduced. The report reflects a consensus that access to justice is essential to the realisation of these rights (cf. Tchermalykh, 2023).

The maker

There is an agreement among key actors in the report on the necessity of establishing independent child representatives in Sweden. Thus, at first glance, there appear to be several potential initiators of this idea: (1) the Swedish government, as the initiator of the inquiry, that has formulated the inquiry’s instructions, (2) the inquiry, that is the team of experts behind the report, (3) the children whose voices are put forward in the report, underlying the need for independent children’s representatives or (4) the Swedish children’s rights NGOs –the actor proposed to represent children.

Arguably, NGOs—specifically Swedish children’s rights organisations—can be seen as the primary driving force behind the proposal for independent children’s representatives in Sweden. Two of these organisations submitted proposals to the government prior to the inquiry and already provide children’s representatives as a service, thereby serving as models for the envisioned role.

The association [Maskrosbarn] has proposed that the government should set up an investigation with the aim of realising that a new function for children's rights becomes a statutory right for children in contact with child welfare services, a so-called independent children’s representative. (The report, p. 564).

The consensus on the need for independent representatives for children—an idea originally advanced by NGOs, that also serves as a model for the proposed role—reflects the strong and influential position of NGOs in the field of children’s rights in Sweden (cf. Josefsson, 2023).

The subject

In the report it is proposed that Swedish children’s rights organisations administer and provide independent children’s representatives. As mentioned, these organisations already offer similar services, which are presented as a model for the proposed role. That these organisations serve as models for the independent children’s representative is underlined by the fact that one of the main organisations, Barnrättsbyrån, shares its name with the proposed designation for the providers of independent children’s representatives – Barnrättsbyråer (Child Rights Bureaus).

The organisation’s documentation further describes that Barnrättsbyrån [the Children's Rights Bureau] for many years have shaped an activity that could constitute a model for how children's rights bureaus can be developed in Sweden. (The report, p. 562).

The new independent children’s representatives are ascribed a broad mandate to represent children in Sweden, covering all societal sectors (The report, p. 575). The report notes that, unlike the proposed children’s representatives, the Swedish Ombudsman for Children lacks the mandate to engage in and pursue individual children’s cases (The report, p. 618). It is proposed that the Ombudsman for Children be given the mandate to monitor the implementation of the Third Optional Protocol (The report, p. 32).

As the mandate for children’s representative is developed, the role is attributed qualities such as the ability to engage with children and to hold primary loyalty to children.

[…] this may involve providing information and explaining decisions and processes, supporting the child in contact with authorities, for example by participating in meetings with child welfare services and schools, helping the child to make his or her voice heard in different processes or assisting in making reports or complaints. Not least, the inquiry sees a need for a function that can provide a continuous, safe source of support for children in vulnerable situations, with its responsibility and loyalty being solely to the child. (The report, p. 74; 570).

The identity of the representative is further constructed through children’s accounts of the children’s rights organisations. The interviewed children and the more content-rich stories of individual children are all strongly positive to the organisations.

Fatima thinks that the children's representative was the first to help her with what she actually asked for and that they always listened and stood by her side. I finally had an adult on my side, someone who is only there for me. (The report, p. 539).

In the report, children’s voices are instrumental in constructing the representative’s identity as trustworthy, caring, and dedicated to children.

Although the mandate of the new children’s representatives is described as broad, their primary focus appears to lie in relation to child welfare services. The independent children’s representatives are primarily described and defined in relation to the child welfare services in the report. This may be understood as reflecting a predominant overlap of mandates with the child welfare services. However, the children’s rights organisations are portrayed as standing in contrast to the child welfare services, which are repeatedly associated with shortcomings—particularly in their engagement with and responsiveness to children. Again, this portrayal gains legitimacy through the voices of the interviewed children and the detailed accounts of individual cases that highlight shortcomings on the part of the authorities, particularly within child welfare services. Of the 11 portrayals of children, the majority (9) relate to the child welfare services.

Most of the young people who participated [in the interviews] testify to encountering inadequate treatment in their interactions with authorities, particularly the child welfare services. (The report, p. 133).

While the children’s rights organisations are portrayed positively, characterised as accessible, willing to listen, and respectful, the child welfare services are depicted as disinterested in, and unresponsive to, children seeking help.

According to an internal evaluation made of the Children's Rights Bureau, it is described by children and young people themselves as accessible. It also appears from the evaluation that the children and young people who turned to the Children's Rights Bureau have in common that they felt abandoned by and critical of authority representatives in child welfare services and other authorities. The young people testify to feelings of abandonment as a result of being met with disinterest, despite obvious needs for help. In contacts with the Children's Rights Bureau, however, they have felt listened to and respected. (The report, p. 528).

However, the contradiction—or implied conflict—between children’s representatives and the child welfare services is not consistently maintained throughout the report and is at times downplayed. It is stated that the independent child representatives should not induce conflict but cooperate with the child welfare services (The report, p. 43; 571).

Occasionally, the child welfare services responsibility for children in vulnerable situations is acknowledged. However, recurrently it is stated that there is no support for children and an absence of actors serving children’s interests and rights.

There is no authority or public body with the task to pursue individual children's cases or provide support and advice to individual children regardless of which rights in the CRC are actualised. (The report, p. 521).

Given the described absence of adequate public support, the role of children’s representatives is described to fill a gap within the Swedish welfare system.

The investigation sees a need for a new function or actor with the potential to provide support for children in vulnerable situations who lack sufficient support from guardians or other adults in their vicinity. For one and the same child, for example, inadequate home conditions, school-related violations, and a need for psychiatric care may constitute parts of a larger set of issues where the child needs support and assistance in multiple respects from someone who can address the child's overall needs. […] Not least, the inquiry sees a need for a function that can provide continuous and safe support for children in vulnerable situations and whose responsibility and loyalty only applies to the child. (The report, p. 570).

By portraying the existing support system as deficient while simultaneously highlighting a gap in actors supporting vulnerable children, a space for the role of independent children’s representatives is created.

The object

In the report, two levels of the object of representation emerge. On the one hand, as mentioned, the mandate of the child representatives is broad, including all societal sectors and arguably all children in Sweden. However, when the object is developed upon in the report, a more defined group emerges and is presented as a subset of children living in vulnerable situations, specifically as especially vulnerable children due to a lack of adult support.

During the investigation’s work to map children’s opportunities to claim their rights, it has become clear that this is particularly difficult for the relatively small but very vulnerable group of children who lack support from guardians or other adults. (The report, p. 504).

Given that the Swedish child welfare services, under the Social Services Act, bear ultimate responsibility for children in vulnerable situations, it can be argued that the group identified as the object of representation largely overlaps with those already served by these services. However, in the report, this group is primarily depicted not just as recipients of care, but as victims of systemic failure.

Children whom society has not been able to help are often in vulnerable situations, with experiences of violence, abuse and neglect. They may have been placed in a foster home or in an institution. They often have great needs for various interventions and not infrequently some form of disability. These are children who are or should be in contact with the child welfare services and receive interventions within the framework of social child and youth care, but who also often have needs that require interventions and contacts with other authorities as well. (The report, p. 567).

The object is given life and identity through the interviewed children and the stories of the 11 individual children.

The children's stories about their experiences with the child welfare services testify to major shortcomings in terms of children's opportunities to speak up and influence their situation, as well as shortcomings in the possibility of receiving support and help at all. (The report, p. 321).

All 11 portraits depict emotional and distressing stories of children who have been failed by society and harmed due to the lack of professionalism by public authorities, particularly the child welfare services. In all the portrayed children’s situations, the child welfare services can be seen as the ultimately responsible authority. For example, Olivia who has been subjected to violence throughout her upbringing.

Throughout her contact with the child welfare services, Olivia has a feeling of not being believed and that her situation is not taken seriously. (The report, p. 131).

Although the report presents voices from several children, the message conveyed is strikingly uniform. Children’s voices serve in the report as testimonies that contribute to the formation of the collective identity of a group of children (the object of representation) let down by societal institutions. This condition also establishes a legitimate connection to the independent children’s representatives.

The referent

The referent refers to the entity from which the object, is constructed (cf. Saward, 2010). As representative claims are about creating the object, the referent is per se absent in the text. To consider the referent is, to some extent, to consider perspectives on children that are obscured in the description of the object. The report mentions children in various care settings such as somatic and psychiatric care as well as e.g., asylum-seeking children that may require representatives. However, the voices that are foregrounded primarily relate to children in contact with child welfare services, particularly those with negative experiences.

As the group of children whose voices are presented is somewhat problematised in the report, the presence of an entity other than the referent—the one being represented—is implied. For example, the report states that ‘Generalisations based on the results of the conversations with children and young people’ should be made with caution (The report, p. 98).

Furthermore, it is stated that:

Children and young people are not a homogeneous group, and the investigation has not had the opportunity to conduct large-scale surveys of children's and young people's general opinions and experiences. (The report, p. 111).

In the report it is stated that it is children’s rights organisations that have interviewed children about their experiences of contact with children’s rights organisations. However, the report lacks a deeper problematisation of the context in which children’s voices are heard—such as who is asking, which children are being consulted, and how this might influence the children’s responses. Although the circumstances differ slightly across the various portrayals of children, the underlying message remains consistent: the need for independent children’s representatives. From a methodological perspective, there is a tendency in the report to homogenise children’s voices, using them as testimonies of truth that carry subtle political undertones. In reference to James (2007), children’s voices are presented as testimonies of lived experience, contributing to the legitimisation of a particular actor, the children’s rights organisations as representatives of children in Sweden.

The audience

Representative claims require acceptance by the represented. Yet in the report, children are portrayed as already recognising children’s rights organisations as their representatives—suggesting they are not the primary addressees in this context. Rather, the audience from which legitimacy is sought could be considered to be referral bodies and the Swedish parliament, which has the authority to enact legislation on the matter. Parliamentary acceptance would institutionalise the role of children’s rights organisations as representatives within Swedish society. Moreover, in the event of incorporation of the Third Optional Protocol, these organisations could also be recognised as legitimate representatives of children before the Committee.

As Swedish children’s rights organisations already act as children’s representatives, these organisations could be considered to already possess certain legitimacy to represent children in Sweden. However, a connection to the central state, including state funding and a formal role as children’s representatives, could enhance the legitimacy of children’s rights organisations by formally linking them to the state and integrating them into the Swedish welfare system. Moreover, this connection could help children’s rights organisations gain legitimacy as independent children’s representatives among a broader audience, including the Swedish public.

Discussion

This study seeks to identify the actors involved in claims to represent children as articulated in the mentioned Swedish Government Official Report, and to analyse how these actors are constructed and positioned through these claims. Furthermore, the study attemps to discuss these claims within the broader context of other actors mandated to represent children in Sweden, with reference to historical shifts in the country's approach to children’s welfare and rights.

The analysis suggests that a specific group of NGOs (Swedish children’s rights organisations) position themselves as representatives for children in difficult life situations who have been let down by the Swedish society, particularly the child welfare services. Recognition of these claims to represent children is sought from the Swedish parliament and, by extension, from the Swedish general public.

The proposal put forward in the report –namely, to grant NGOs (specifically children’s rights organisations) a mandate to representat children– can be understood as a Swedish example of a broader international trend of governments creating institutional arrangements to ensure that children’s voices are represented (cf. Wall and Dar, 2011). Furthermore, the report reflects the strong position that NGOs have attained as monitors and experts on children’s rights, both in Sweden and internationally (cf. Josefsson et al., 2023; Josefsson, 2023). Notably, however, the representative claims articulated in the report may be interpreted as challenging other established and institutionalised actors, who possess a more or less explicit mandate to represent children living in vulnerable situations in Sweden. The Swedish child welfare services, the Children’s Ombudsman, and children’s rights NGOs can be seen as reflecting the official Swedish stance on children’s rights during the respective historical periods in which they emerged. The changing approach to children’s welfare has, under the growing influence of the rights discourse, been characterised as a move toward greater individualisation – both internationally and in Sweden (cf. Reynaert et al., 2015; Sandin, 2012; Lindqvist, 2022).

In the Swedish context, child welfare services — although not typically described in terms of representation — can nonetheless, through their existence and statutory obligations, be considered as representing children in vulnerable life situations, albeit in a more indirect sense (cf. Wall and Dar, 2011). Developed as part of the broader welfare state, child welfare services stem from a time when children’s welfare was addressed through social reforms that more or less indirectly tackled children’s situations (cf. Sandin, 2012).

Another actor mandated to represent children is the ICRI, the Swedish Ombudsman for Children, who, since the 1990s, has been tasked with representing children as a group in society and in relation to Swedish politics (cf. Koren, 1995). The establishment of the Children’s Ombudsman marks a period when children’s rights became an explicit policy objective, still primarily viewed at the group level and addressed in connection with broader societal issues. As such, the Children’s Ombudsman represents a central government solution to children’s rights-based representation in Sweden.

The claims to represent children examined in this study, however, point to an ambition not only to represent children as a group in relation to the political level (the mandate of the Ombudsman for Children) but also to represent individual children — particularly in relation to state agencies, and especially the child welfare services. This would expand the role of the NGOs from monitoring state agencies’ compliance with the CRC (cf. Josefsson, 2023), to also include representing individual children in relation to state authorities. It reflects a voluntary or private solution to children’s rights-based representation, albeit one with close – though at times blurred – connections to the central state.

As such the proposal to introduce representatives for individual children can be seen as an expression of the individualisation in the understanding and handling of children’s rights in Sweden and a delegation of responsibility from the state and state agencies to NGOs. This individualisation of the understanding of children’s rights becomes particularly evident when the report is viewed in relation to the government bill that preceded Sweden’s ratification of the CRC in 1990, which states: “There is a risk that the conditions of children and young people are perceived as something disconnected from other societal issues. This would be a gross misunderstanding. Instead, it is exactly because the conditions of children and young people reflect the general conditions in society. Children’s and youth issues must therefore be placed in their broader societal context.” (Sweden, 1989, Prop. 1989/90:107 p. 21). However, since then, Swedish society has undergone significant changes and against the backdrop of today’s contested child welfare system, giving NGOs a mandate to represent children could serve as a way for the Swedish government to address the crisis in welfare institutions — particularly within the child welfare services (cf. Lundström et al., 2021). Thus, the Swedish central state’s objective of addressing the imperative to give voice to children and promote their participation through NGOs can be seen as aligning with the interests of NGOs in seeking greater influence and space (cf. Hanson, 2023; Hahn and Holzscheiter, 2013).

However, accepting NGOs’ claims to represent children—and thereby framing children as victims of deficiencies in state-organised support— may, to some extent, sideline and signal a shift in the role and function of public child welfare services. Situating the mandate to represent children wthin NGOs — alongside the associated portrayals of child welfare services — suggests a reorientation of loyalty and trust away from public institutions and towards NGOs.

Given the family-service orientation of Swedish child welfare services—characterised by early, voluntary interventions that rely heavily on trust and relational continuity—this development could compromise a core aspect of their approach. If the responsibility for building trusting relationships with children is increasingly transferred to NGOs, the capacity of child welfare services to fulfil their relational mandate may be weakened.

The analysed claims indicate a tendency among NGOs to portray children as victims of failing institutions — a portrayal that helps establish a connection between the represented children and the NGOs acting as their advocates. This construction is, to some extent, grounded in and reinforced by the children’s voices. The children’s voices function in the report as testimonies of lived experience, underscoring the perceived need for a new actor: independent children’s representatives within the Swedish welfare system. However, methodological concerns arise regarding how children participate in the report and how their voices are presented. These concerns raise questions of representativeness, credibility, and underlying agendas—issues previously highlighted in research on children’s participation and voice (cf. James, 2007).

Generalisability and further research

The struggle to represent children is likely to take different forms depending on a country’s institutional arrangements. In Sweden, the proposal to assign NGOs the role of children’s representatives reflects a political ambition to promote the third sector as a welfare provider (Reuter, 2012). Further studies could usefully explore how various welfare regimes or child protection models address claims to represent children. Such studies may underscore the importance of analysing who makes these claims, the forms they take, and the contexts in which they are articulated. Perhaps most importantly, this research highlights the need to be mindful of how children’s voices are invoked in the very act of claiming to represent them.