How does the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brå) define and count rape?

1. How Brå defines rape under Swedish law: the consent frame

Since the 2018 reform, Swedish rape law is based on absence of voluntary consent rather than proof of violence, threats or extreme vulnerability — the legislature and Brå describe this as a consent-based model; the law also created a new negligent-rape offence for cases where consent cannot be established but intentionality is disputed ^{[1] [4] [5]}. Brå has published follow-ups of how the criminal justice system applies these “rules on voluntariness,” noting the shift in what counts legally as rape ^[1].

2. How Brå counts incidents in official statistics: one act, one record

Brå is Sweden’s official statistics authority for judicial data and records each criminal offence reported to police; in principle every separate offence is registered, even if committed repeatedly by the same perpetrator against the same victim on different occasions (the government gives the example that a woman raped every night for a year would be registered as 365 offences) ^{[2] [3]}. Brå emphasises that recording practice — not necessarily a higher underlying incidence — helps explain Sweden’s high reported per‑capita numbers compared with other countries ^[3].

3. Why reported numbers rose after 2018 — law, recording and outcomes

Independent reporting and Brå’s own analyses link at least part of the post‑2018 rise in reported and convicted rapes to the broadened legal definition and recording practices. Reuters cited Brå’s finding that convictions rose from 190 in 2017 to 333 in 2019 after the consent law; Brå also reports that non‑violent rapes appear among the components driving increases and that negligent‑rape judgments have been difficult in some cases ^{[6] [5]}. Brå’s more recent follow‑ups analyse how police, prosecutors and defence counsel apply the law and the sentencing landscape ^{[1] [5]}.

4. What the counting method means for comparisons and interpretation

Brå and the Swedish government explicitly warn that international comparisons and longitudinal trend‑reading are fraught: changes in legal definitions plus the practice of counting each criminal act can greatly inflate counts versus countries that record fewer incidents per victim or which have narrower statutory definitions ^{[3] [2]}. Brå’s study suggests that if Sweden used Germany’s legal/recording framework, its ranking in Eurostat rape statistics would fall toward the middle ^[3].

5. Limitations, critiques and tensions in the reporting record

Brå’s reports and academic commentary note persistent problems: conviction rates historically lag other crime types, application of negligent‑rape rules is “difficult,” and some decisions raise concerns about consistency and victims’ procedural experiences ^{[5] [7]}. Critics argue the consent law will not automatically raise convictions, while advocates point to increased convictions after the reform as evidence of progress; Brå’s own tone in follow‑ups is cautiously positive but highlights practical challenges ^{[4] [6] [5]}.

6. Broader data points cited by authorities and researchers

Brå publishes judicial statistics showing a rise in reported sexual offences and gives concrete counts (25,879 reported sexual offences in 2024 and 10,167 rapes registered in 2024, per Brå’s statistics) ^[2]. European Institute for Gender Equality data also treat sexual violence as acts performed without consent and report high proportions of victims who are women in Sweden’s administrative data ^[8].

7. How to read claims about Sweden’s “high rape rate” responsibly

The most important context when you see claims that Sweden has unusually high rape rates is threefold and supported in Brå and government reporting: (a) the statutory definition expanded in 2018 to a consent model ^{[1] [4]}; (b) Swedish recording rules count each separate offence, producing higher counts for repeated abuse ^[3]; and (c) Brå and independent outlets document real increases in reporting and some rises in convictions, but also note unresolved issues with how the law is applied ^{[6] [5] [2]}. Any claim that Sweden’s raw numbers alone prove a uniquely worse incidence must be tempered by these methodological and legal explanations ^[3].

If you want, I can extract specific Brå passages about recording rules, or compile the conviction‑count timeline (2017–2019) with direct Brå citations and Reuters coverage for easier citation.