Yesterday, the European Parliament voted in favor of a resolution urging the European Commission to propose EU-wide legislation defining rape based on the absence of freely given, informed, and revocable consent.
It’s now as the so-called “only yes means yes” standard which was first introduced in an EU member state by Sweden in 2018 after the “Me Too” movement went global in 2017.
The non-binding text, passed with 447 votes in favor, 160 against, and 43 abstentions, calls on all member states to replace “no means no” or force-based models with the Swedish-style consent-centered approach.
It emphasizes that silence, lack of resistance, previous relationships or prior consent cannot imply agreement.
The resolution highlights the Istanbul Convention and European Court of Human Rights case law as foundations, aiming to harmonize fragmented national laws in EU member states, where especially member states in Eastern Europe and Southern Europe often still require proof of violence or threats for rape convictions.
The resolution’s rapporteur, the Swedish Social Democrat Evin Incir, drew clear inspiration from the Swedish legislation her party introduced in Sweden in 2018.
In the European Parliament, the rapporteur is the lead Member of Parliament responsible for steering a specific report through the entire legislative process.
This includes drafting the initial report, incorporating expert input and amendments from other MEPs as well as negotiating compromise texts within the responsible committee (in this case primarily LIBE) and presenting the final text to the plenary for debate and vote.
Incir has frequently cited Sweden’s experience, including increased reporting and convictions, as a necessary model for the entire EU.
The Swedish law change in 2018 shifted the focus to whether the other person participated voluntarily, making non-consensual acts rape even without physical force.
If translated into binding EU law, the new standard would require member states to criminalize sexual acts where voluntary participation is absent.
This includes situations addressed in Sweden through the offence of negligent rape (oaktsam våldtäkt).
Under Swedish law, a person can be convicted if they perform a sexual act with someone not participating voluntarily and are negligent about that fact, meaning they should have realized the risk but continued anyway.
Passivity or “freezing” does not count as consent; the initiator of sexual acts has a duty to ensure ongoing voluntariness.
Critics and observers note that such cases often become classic “word-against-word” trials with no witnesses.
Convictions can rest heavily on circumstantial evidence.
The complainant’s testimony and prompt disclosures to friends, family or the authorities describing for example how they initially agreed to intercourse but then froze and no longer wanted to continue, while the man allegedly failed to notice or check for continued consent, can lead to conviction.
Swedish courts have convicted men of negligent rape on such grounds, relying on credibility assessments, behavioral context and the absence of active, ongoing participation.
Proponents argue this protects victims in grey-zone situations.
Opponents worry that it lowers the threshold for criminal liability in ambiguous, private encounters where intent is hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt, and making it easy for women to falsely accuse men of rape after their relationship turned sour for various reason.
The resolution marks a political step forward but still requires European Commission action and approval by a majority of EU member states.
🇪🇺🇸🇪