Support in Law, Control in Practice: Legal Guardianship for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities and the Fostering of Moral Responsibility

Participation perceived as inconvenient and problematic

Guardians describe the individual’s abilities based on personal perceptions rather than medical diagnoses, often unaware of details in the official medical certificates. As they do not have much else to go on, they focus on perceived challenges, such as communication, comprehension, and impulse control: ‘He knows nothing. He is like a child, so to speak. And then I have another one – he’s a bit more alert, but he doesn’t talk much either’ (Marianne, layperson). Across interviews, it is clear that the guardians’ views of the individual’s mental capacity shape their approach to guardianship, particularly regarding whether to involve the individual in decision-making. If seen as lacking capacity, guardians often feel little need to inform or engage them. Many cite limited understanding, especially regarding money, to justify minimal involvement in decisions. Also, if the individual is seen as lacking comprehension, guardians consider self-determination less important, assuming it will not be missed. As one participant put it: ‘He (the individual) gets no joy from that integrity. It just becomes troublesome’ (Helena, relative). The guardian’s perspective on their mandate and responsibilities also seems to be closely tied to their assessment of the individual’s capacity. When the person is seen as lacking capacity, guardianship often functions like legal administration, with similar levels of authority.

If the person doesn’t understand what the matter is about, then you’re somewhat of a ‘light’ legal administrator (…) I’ve tried to point out that I’m the one who makes the decisions. (Markus, professional)

Several guardians note that their role becomes more complex when individuals take independent initiative, especially in purchases. These individuals are seen as harder to manage—not because they can’t make decisions, but because they are viewed as making poor ones. They have some capacity, but not enough or the right kind. Guardians often position themselves as the active decision-makers, encouraging passivity in the individual. Independent actions may therefore be perceived as problematic, potentially causing issues for the guardian and themselves. Therefore, these individuals are sometimes referred to as ‘difficult’ cases in comparison to individuals with less ability to act on their own:

Either they are severely lowly gifted and don’t fully understand how things work, or they are somewhere in between – thinking they understand but not actually grasping it. But those individuals are the most difficult. They really want to decide, but in those cases, you have to be extremely clear about what rules apply. (Patrik, layperson)

Due to such challenges and conflicts, some guardians prefer legal administration, which simplifies their role by granting full decision-making authority, especially over finances. Others advocate for a stricter form of guardianship that increases guardian control—particularly over financial matters—without fully removing the individual’s autonomy. This is often tied to concerns about individuals accessing their own accounts and the need to prevent reckless spending. Ultimately, guardians’ perceptions of the individual strongly shape their approach and interactions.

Across many of the interviews, there was both an explicit and tacit assumption that individuals who have a guardian have it for a reason. Namely, a presumed lack of decision-making ability associated with ID. Decision-making incapacity was framed as inherent, serving as the very justification for guardianship. Consequently, some guardians expressed open frustration with the emphasis on individual choice, whether this emphasis came from the individuals themselves, their relatives, or from authorities: ‘He gains nothing from it. He loses financially. I gain nothing from it. No one in society gains from it’ (Helena, relative). In this context, autonomy is viewed not as a positive value but as a potential problem for the individual, the guardian, and society as a whole.

There is a lot legal administration prevents. And it takes away the individual’s freedom. So it is a major intervention in the individual’s life. But I mean, it’s worse if that individual mismanages their finances. And ends up on the street. Becomes homeless. Or doesn’t have money for food for the day. Isn’t it better to go straight for legal administration? (…) But it sounds like this Swedish way of thinking… Or the lawmakers, who say that the individual is worth it. (Sabina, layperson)

Autonomy is often weighed against risks and notions of best interests, and at times framed through discourses of moral worth. From a guardian’s perspective, some individuals may not be worth the effort or risk that participation entails, or are simply unsuited for it, which makes Sweden’s policy emphasis on self-determination troublesome.

Conditional financial autonomy

When the individual and guardian disagree on what constitutes the individual’s best interests, conflict often arises. In such cases, the guardians tend to follow their own judgement, citing the individual’s perceived lack of mental capacity, which becomes a key rationale for exercising control in the name of protection. Guardians frequently refer to various risks, often focusing on worst-case scenarios they view as real and ongoing concerns, such as homelessness. These risks are weighed heavily against the individual’s preferences, with the person’s will rarely taking priority. While some risks may be immediate and serious, others are hypothetical, based on assumptions about vulnerability related to disability.

The best interest standard is rarely interpreted as including the individual’s right to make their own decisions. Guardians seldom argue that acting in someone’s best interest should reflect what that person would have chosen. Instead, the concept is primarily used to justify overriding the individual’s wishes, especially when the guardian’s idea of the ‘right’ decision clearly conflicts with the person’s expressed or presumed preferences: ‘There is a lot of conflict. But there’s nothing I can do about it because I know what’s best for her. She doesn’t’ (Nour, professional). In this context, best interests often reflect societal norms, such as financial responsibility or conventional behaviours, rather than the individual’s values or goals.

Conflicts also arise when individuals act in ways that challenge the guardian’s responsibilities—particularly in financial matters. The most common issue is excessive spending, which is frequently cited as a risk requiring intervention. In such cases, the individual’s independence and self-determination are framed as problematic, as they are seen to interfere with the guardian’s ability to fulfil their duties. As one guardian said: ‘The most important thing in my cases is ensuring that they don’t have the ability to access their money. (…) Otherwise, they create problems for themselves’ (Stefan, professional).

Financial management emerges as a central focus in guardianship. The guardians express that they are expected to control spending, often requiring individuals to seek permission to access their own money. A widespread practice, mentioned in every interview, involves giving individuals a fixed weekly or monthly allowance, commonly referred to as ‘pocket money’. This amount is typically deposited into a limited-access account, separate from the guardian-managed transaction and savings accounts. Accessing other accounts is often considered misbehaviour, a form of ‘tampering’, and several guardians emphasise the need to prevent such attempts.

You should have the right to a pocket money account where you can buy ice cream and hot dogs and stuff. But not mess with the other [accounts]. Because that’s what leads to being forced into legal administration unnecessarily. (Patrik, layperson)

Other administrative measures also reinforce control. A common example is redirecting the individual’s mail to the guardian through a ‘special mailing address,’ often justified as necessary for managing bills and services. However, this limits the individual’s access to personal information and is rarely discussed with them. Some guardians state that no communication or consent is required. This encouraged passivity often rests on the idea of ‘presumed consent.’ Guardians may interpret initial acceptance of guardianship as ongoing permission to manage everyday matters without consultation. Since the law only requires consent for major decisions, most day-to-day choices fall outside this requirement. As a result, participation depends largely on whether the guardian chooses to inform the individual. Some describe a ‘do first, ask later’ approach, which still relies on the guardian taking the initiative.

Too much emphasis on consent can also be perceived as troublesome for the guardian, as it can be counterproductive to achieving what they believe to be their duty, namely caring for the individual’s well-being:

I mean, they have to listen to us when we represent them. Why do they need their consent? Because when we are responsible for their care and well-being, we know what is best for them. They (the individuals) don’t know what is best for them. Yet, they are the ones who must give their consent. That’s what I find frustrating. For example, the woman who refuses all services, why don’t they listen to us? “That would be coercion”. Okay, but what type of coercion is that? There’s so much bureaucracy. (Miriam, layperson)

Taken together, these measures contribute to making the guardian’s assignment more manageable—which, from a practical standpoint, is understandable. However, this also means that the individual’s ‘best interests’ are often shaped by what is most efficient or least burdensome for the guardian, or what they perceive to be expected of them.

Fostering financial diligence and moral responsibility

As noted, many guardians see it as their duty to control the individual’s spending, often to encourage financial stability. Guardians frequently describe the individuals as financially disadvantaged, with little room for discretionary spending, making strict budgeting essential. Several express concerns over how financial hardship restricts individuals from accessing even basic needs or small personal wants. Yet financial control often goes beyond economic necessity. It becomes closely tied to the guardian’s subjective judgements about what constitutes a ‘reasonable’ or ‘useful’ purchase: ‘I’m pretty sure I would have said no. It has to be reasonable, of course, but on the other hand, it can cost money if it’s something good’ (Bengt, layperson). Individuals may only be ‘allowed’ to buy something if it aligns with what the guardian deems appropriate, regardless of whether the individual has sufficient funds. It is also worth noting that guardians’ perceptions of an individual’s needs are shaped by their views of disability and the preconceived notions that accompany them. For example, one guardian explained, ‘He is at a preschool level, about one and a half years old mentally. Only basic needs apply’ (Markus, professional).

Such value-based decisions become especially pronounced when money is tight, reinforcing the guardian’s role in shaping and limiting spending choices. The pocket money is sometimes kept deliberately low to ensure that the individual must request additional funds for certain purchases: ‘I have constant conversations every day with people asking for more pocket money and similar requests. I try to distribute it gradually, maybe 100 crowns (approximately nine euros) per day’ (Patrik, layperson). When extra money is provided, it is often limited to pre-approved purposes. Financial control thus extends to both large expenses and small, everyday purchases.

Guardians may also intervene in personal preferences that fall outside clear financial concerns. Some examples mentioned include discouraging magazine subscriptions considered ‘weird,’ expressing concern over fast food habits, or intervening in relationships viewed as financially unstable. These examples show how financial and personal oversight often overlap. In many cases, a guardian’s sense of the individual’s best interests requires involvement in broader aspects of life, particularly when financial concerns are linked to personal issues. Worries about destructive behaviours, such as addiction, or fears of exploitation, often shape the perceived need for control. At the same time, financial oversight can prompt deeper involvement in the individual’s daily life, creating a mutually reinforcing cycle of control.

I’m not supposed to tell my clients how to handle their relationships. But as long as it affects their finances and living situation, I am forced to step in and say that we need to set some rules here. (Nour, professional)

Guardians often stress the importance of the individual learning to ‘behave’ within the framework of guardianship, which typically means following the rules and expectations established by the guardian. The rationale may still be framed in terms of protection; however, the underlying goal appears to shift towards ensuring compliance and reducing what are perceived as disruptive or problematic behaviours.

They don’t get up to a lot. The guy might try, but he knows that it would be over his dead body, so he doesn’t do anything because then he’d have me on his back. It’s easy to fall back into a couple hundred thousand in debt. (Bengt, layperson)

A recurring tendency is to differentiate between individuals, categorising some as ‘nice’ and well-behaved clients, while labelling others as ‘difficult’ and in need of correction. For example: ‘The others are really nice. They behave themselves. I send pocket money once a week and call to check how they’re doing. Some function effortlessly’ (Miriam, layperson).

Guardians describe how they begin by attempting to influence the individual’s behaviours through persuasion and motivation: questioning purchases, suggesting alternatives, or encouraging different choices. However, when individuals resist or push back, guardians may escalate their approach from guidance to more coercive tactics. These tactics can include using threatening or disapproving language, withholding or restricting access to funds, or transferring the individual’s bank accounts to another bank without their knowledge—effectively ‘hiding’ the money, which one guardian described as a commonly recommended strategy. In some cases, guardians escalate to more coercive measures, including threatening or actually applying for legal administration. An action that, once approved, fully revokes the individual’s legal access to their own finances.

Most of them can see the accounts that I manage. But they are not allowed to touch them. That’s the first thing I tell them. I say, if you touch that account, you’ll get a legal administrator. And they are terrified of that. (Lisbeth, layperson)

Notably, displeasure with a guardian, or even an attempt to request a change of guardian, may result in the appointment of a legal administrator. One limited guardian explained that an individual had sought to change guardian due to perceiving them as overly controlling; however, this instead led the guardian to apply for legal administration—a request that was approved. The prospect of legal administration thus constitutes a very real threat, one that may discourage individuals from voicing their wishes and needs.

In situations where control cannot be maintained through either persuasion or coercion, guardians may resort to avoidance, refusal, or withdrawal. Some describe choosing to resign from the assignment altogether, while others petition for the guardianship to be terminated, arguing that the individual does not ‘consent to the guardianship in practice’. Guardians may also exert control by inaction, refusing to act on the individual’s behalf if they consider the request inappropriate. One guardian, for example, declined to assist when an individual wanted to appeal a government decision.

I would not have appealed that. You’ll have to do that yourself. I am careful to not see myself as a serf. Or as an assistant. This assignment is different. It is partly guided by what I believe is best. I have been deemed suitable for my role. I have been deemed suitable for this. To make this assessment. So that should stand. (Markus, professional)

Enforcing self-governance

Taken together, the findings suggest that power is central to the guardianship relationship, even when framed as care or protection. Guardianship can be understood as a form of governmentality (Foucault 2003), where everyday practices of guidance, persuasion, and control shape how individuals act and choose. It is not a power that simply restrains freedom but one that incites individuals to be free in a particular way. It operates by structuring the possible field of action, encouraging certain behaviours while discouraging others. At the same time, technologies of discipline and restriction serve to contain behaviours judged as problematic or risky (Foucault 1995). Within this framework, guardians often view their role as extending beyond support, with independent action and self-determination framed less as goals to foster than as obstacles to their primary duties of financial management, protection from harm, and shaping the individual’s conduct.

At times, the emphasis on fostering financial diligence and moral responsibility borders on discipline and control. Practices such as deliberately keeping pocket money low to ensure that individuals must repeatedly request funds, or permitting purchases only if they align with the guardian’s sense of what is ‘reasonable’ or ‘useful’, keep the individual under constant supervision and with the guardian steering everyday choices. Moral judgements extend from seemingly trivial matters, such as ‘weird’ magazine subscriptions, to intimate concerns like intervening in relationships perceived as financially unstable, illustrating how financial oversight and moral judgement overlap. Individuals are monitored not to exercise free choice but to internalise acceptable norms of behaviour, responsibility, and self-management.

The power to survey and discipline is embedded in the guardian’s role, legitimised by the assumption that guardians possess abilities or competencies that the individual lacks, namely mental capacity. Guardians’ expressed frustration over the emphasis on individual choice reflects this logic, since incapacity itself is the very justification for guardianship. People with ID are categorised as subjects defined by their need for support, which prescribes both what they can and cannot do and how they relate to others, particularly guardians. Such categorisation legitimises interventions and expectations of compliance, permission-seeking, and acceptance of one’s role within guardianship. These positions are not neutral; they separate people with ID from ‘normal’ others and facilitate institutional control (Yates 2005). Individuals under guardianship are positioned within an evaluative framework that makes their conduct subject to regulation and sanction.

The conditionality of autonomy

These dynamics can be understood as part of broader features of the modern welfare state, where norms and techniques are designed to prevent attitudes and behaviours seen as disruptive to social order (Börjesson, Palmblad and Wahl 2005). Within this framework, citizenship and autonomy often appear conditional, with greater freedom afforded to those who align with prevailing norms. Those who are considered particularly hard to manage, who resist guidance or fail to demonstrate the expected self-discipline, may become subject to interventions. In such situations, guardians may act as conduct experts, guiding individuals towards socially accepted forms of conduct. Such interventions are frequently framed in emancipatory terms, presented as supporting individuals in achieving their ‘best interests’ and regaining control over their lives.

Guardians’ frequent emphasis on so-called ‘difficult’ or ‘tampering’ clients underscores the value they place on individuals’ willingness to follow their rules. This concern reflects broader tendencies in social welfare policy and care practice, where interventions are framed as efforts to motivate and reach consensus rather than to exercise overt force (Epstein 1999). Yet, the task often remains one of governing or adjusting the client, which fills the practice with inherent contradictions. Within this logic, autonomy is conditional, granted only when individuals demonstrate diligence and conformity, signalling that they are ‘good clients’ willing to adjust to the guardian’s standards (Moffat 1999). The contrast between ‘nice’ clients who require little supervision and those labelled ‘difficult’ highlights this conditionality and the way compliance is rewarded with relative freedom (see also Fernqvist 2018). Those who resist or deviate from expectations risk being cast as problematic, which can justify more restrictive interventions (Juhila 2003).

More coercive strategies further illustrate this disciplinary logic. As mentioned, guardians may withhold money, threaten or apply for legal administration, or refuse to act on behalf of the individual to enforce specific behaviours. The use of legal administration as a threat shows how fear itself becomes a regulatory tool, discouraging resistance or even requests for change of guardian. Such practices do not foster autonomy but deepen dependency within a system of behavioural regulation. Even the least restrictive strategies, like motivation, are not neutral; they encourage behaviours aligned with normative expectations and thus function as subtle forms of discipline. Given the inherent power imbalance in guardianship, the individual’s capacity to resist is limited (Brosnan and Flynn 2017).

The issue extends beyond individual guardian attitudes and is shaped by legal and policy frameworks that restrict participation and promote control. Routine practices such as redirecting mail to the guardian, limiting financial access to ‘pocket money,’ and applying presumed consent in everyday matters exclude individuals, institutionalise passivity, and place them firmly under the guardian’s supervision. These measures also serve administrative purposes, facilitating more efficient financial management. The emphasis on financial control does not originate solely from individual guardians but is embedded in a broader system in which guardians themselves are subject to oversight. They must report their actions to the Chief Guardian, who places particular emphasis on documenting transactions to demonstrate proper financial conduct. In this way, guardians are also governed, positioned as efficient agents of the state’s administrative system (Drinkwater 2005).

This study provides an empirically grounded account of how guardianship functions as a form of behavioural governance, where power operates not only through formal authority but through everyday practices of moral shaping. Beyond offering support, guardianship thus becomes a site where norms of responsibility, diligence, and proper citizenship are enacted and reinforced. It should also be acknowledged that guardianship practices are varied and that some guardians do make committed efforts to listen to and advance the will and preferences of those they support. Recognising this variation does not diminish the patterns in the findings but highlights the complexity of the role. Guardians face real challenges in balancing respect for individual choices with perceived duties of protection, yet these findings reveal how deeply support and control are entangled within the guardianship relationship. This underscores the limitations of Sweden’s current approach to legal capacity and its implementation of the CRPD, raising questions about how support can be reconceptualised beyond paternalistic protection towards genuine recognition of individuals’ will and preferences. It also raises broader questions about the purpose of decision-making support, extending from guardians’ practices to the interpretations of Article 12 of the CRPD and its General Comments (Broström, Nilsson and Fridström Montoya 2025). As reforms unfold in several countries, greater attention must be paid to how guardians interpret and enact their role, since their practices directly shape not only the autonomy but also the everyday lives of those under guardianship.