The principle of proportionality is used in order to reach a resolution of conflicts between a right on the one hand a and a competing right or interest on the other. The core of the principle is the balancing act between these conflicting rights and interests. I will discuss how the balancing act may be used to benefit the Swedish authorities’ handling of suspected cases of female genital mutilation. Investigation of suspected cases may entail involuntary genital examinations and other interventions that infringes upon the right to privacy and family life. How much state invasion of privacy of individuals, is proportionate to the interest of checking for an inadmissible practice? How may officials balance between conflicting laws when they handle cases of suspected female genital mutilation?

In later decades, the principle of proportionality has gained increased critic, e. g. for its assumed moral neutrality, posing as a pure technical way of perform a cost benefit analysis. The principle doesn’t purport to struggle with moral issues. At the same time, it is obvious that the principle itself rests upon assumptions regarding what is good in a society. In Sweden, as well as in many other countries in western Europe, there is a strong perception that female genital mutilation is a severe social problem. The perception remains although it has been refuted in research. How do public ideas about the scope of the problem in Sweden, as in other western countries, affect the choices made when handling specific cases regarding suspected female genital mutilation? Is it even possible to reach a fair and proportionate balance?