in 1999 the Swedish Parliament decided to provide economic compensation to victims of involuntary sterilization, and in 2012 a similar law was enacted to redress neglect and abuse in foster homes and orphanages. This study explores the dilemmas that arise with reparations for past injustices, focusing on the process leading up to the reparation laws. Four themes are investigated: [1] state redress as the result of political action, [2] the identification and documentation of historical injustices, [3] how issues of responsibility were discussed and, [4] the juridification of redress.

This study shows that it took approximately ten years for the first public claims for redress to gain enough political momentum to yield results. In both cases governmental commissions were set up. However, the commissions used different methods and materials. Involuntary sterilizations were mainly investigated through re-interpretation of existing source material, whereas child abuse was primarily documented through interviews. The two commissions also differed in how they judged the past: the Inquiry on Sterilization employed a historicising approach, while the Inquiry on Child Abuse and Neglect in Institutions and Foster Homes employed a contemporary normative approach.

In both cases, the moral responsibility of the state to give redress was stressed, rather than any legal liability. Redress was granted ex gratia, i. e. as an act of grace, through temporary laws, rather than as an admission of legally established wrongdoing. Deserving victims were to be identified through court-like procedures, which sparked a debate on how to uphold due process and what kind of evidence woould be admissible and sufficient. Hence reparations for historical injustices carry many paradoxes that need to be adressed in future discussions on redress.