Which peer-reviewed studies compare sexual violence rates between migrants and native-born populations in Europe?

1. The evidence base: syntheses say “many studies, few direct comparisons”

Major critical interpretive syntheses and systematic reviews collected dozens of peer‑reviewed articles on SV among migrants in Europe but emphasize heterogeneity of methods, definitions, samples and the scarcity of representative comparative studies that pit migrants directly against host populations; one CIS included 25 peer‑reviewed studies and concluded comparable prevalence data are difficult to obtain, while a preprint version of that review noted SV among migrants in Europe is probably more frequent than in the general population but stressed that representative comparative studies are lacking ^{[1] [2]}. A separate review focused on young migrants identified only 11 peer‑reviewed studies across 20 years, underscoring how few rigorous, comparable quantitative studies exist for that age group ^{[5] [6]}.

2. Country‑level peer‑reviewed studies that do the comparison or report migrant incidence

A recent Swedish cross‑sectional study of young migrants reported higher prevalence ratios of rape and sexual assault among migrant subgroups versus reference groups, producing crude and adjusted prevalence ratios that directly quantify differences ^{[3] [7]}. In France, a retrospective cohort published in The Lancet Regional Health reported high incidence of SV among recently arrived asylum‑seeking women and highlighted a post‑arrival period of heightened vulnerability—data that speak to elevated risk among asylum seekers though not always presented as a direct matched comparison with native‑born women ^[4]. Other national studies cited in reviews (for example studies in Belgium and the Netherlands) provide contextual comparisons about perpetrators and patterns rather than standardized prevalence comparisons across migrants and natives ^[3].

3. Regional and thematic reviews that aggregate comparative signals

Broader syntheses—such as a Globalization and Health CIS that selected 67 peer‑reviewed articles and region‑specific analyses of the Mediterranean migration routes—document pervasive sexual and gender‑based violence across migration trajectories and compile many peer‑reviewed studies showing high victimization rates among migrants, but these reviews rarely deliver pan‑European, directly comparable migrant-versus-native prevalence estimates because of study heterogeneity and reliance on convenience or clinic‑based samples ^{[8] [9]}.

4. Why rigorous comparisons are rare: methodological and ethical barriers

Researchers repeatedly point to definitional inconsistency, lack of representative sampling frames, underreporting, mixed legal statuses, and conflation of migrants, refugees and asylum seekers as causes that prevent clean comparisons; the CIS and systematic reviews explicitly flag these research challenges and the need for better‑designed population studies to confirm hypotheses about relative prevalence ^{[1] [5] [2]}. Clinic or service‑based samples and studies of victims presenting for care further bias estimates upward for migrants in contact with services and do not reliably reflect population prevalence ^{[1] [10]}.

5. Counter‑views and political context

Commentary and reporting note an important counter‑point: when demographic and socio‑economic characteristics are controlled for, immigrants are not necessarily more likely than native‑born people to commit crimes—an argument invoked in debates about migration and violence and reported in journalistic analyses that warn against politicized readings of SV data ^{[11] [12]}. Reviews and studies themselves highlight that poverty, precariousness and stage of the migration journey are potent drivers of vulnerability, implying structural causes rather than simple origin‑based differences ^{[11] [10]}.

6. Bottom line for researchers and policymakers

Peer‑reviewed sources exist that compare or document higher SV incidence among certain migrant subgroups in Europe—notably the Swedish cross‑sectional study on young migrants and the French cohort of asylum‑seeking women—but the literature is dominated by heterogeneous, often non‑representative studies and syntheses calling for standardized, comparative, population‑based research to draw definitive continent‑wide conclusions ^{[3] [4] [1]}.