Written by Kaitlyn Kirk / Communications@flnow.org

The need for real, comprehensive sex education in this country is urgent. Not just for young people, but for adults who continue to shape what information is allowed, restricted, or erased.

This is not just about anatomy or pregnancy prevention. It is about power, language, and safety. When young people do not have the words to describe what is happening to them, when they are not taught what consent actually looks like in practice, it leaves them more vulnerable to harm.

That is part of how rape culture continues. 

Teen pregnancy is often misrepresented in public conversation. It is frequently framed as a result of teenage peer relationships or “poor decisions” between similarly aged young people. The data tells a more serious story.

Research shows that adult men are responsible for a significant portion of teen pregnancies. One large study found that approximately 49 percent of births to teenage mothers were fathered by men age 20 or older. Other research has found that around two-thirds of babies born to teenage mothers have fathers who are adult men, often several years older than the teen mother.

But there is some good news: Teen pregnancy rates are down.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the teen birth rate in the United States has dropped by more than 70 percent since the early 1990s.

Some Republicans have been publicly arguing that the drop in teen pregnancy rates is a “problem”. This is not an isolated talking point. In recent years, conservative commentators and political figures have increasingly framed declining teen birth rates as part of a broader “fertility crisis,” sometimes arguing that fewer teen births contribute to population decline and should be reversed through policy changes.

Fewer teen pregnancies means fewer young people being pushed into parenthood before they are ready. It means more people finishing school, more economic stability, and more control over their own lives.

Compiled by Debbie Deland

Also known as: End Demand Model • Equality Model • Swedish Model

This fact sheet summarizes the structure, stated goals, documented outcomes, and range of perspectives on the Nordic Model of sex work regulation. It presents findings from both supporters and critics, drawing on government evaluations, public-health research, and human-rights organizations.

1. What the Nordic Model Is

The Nordic Model is a legal framework that criminalizes the purchase of all sexual services while decriminalizing the sale of consensual adult sexual services. It was first enacted in Sweden in 1999. It also typically criminalizes:

• • Third-party involvement in commercial sex (e.g., managers, drivers, security personnel)
• • Renting premises for the purpose of sex work
• • Advertising sexual services

The model is premised on the view that demand drives commercial sex, and that reducing demand through criminal penalties on buyers will reduce the overall sex trade.

2. Where the Nordic Model Has Been Adopted

The following countries have enacted versions of the Nordic Model. Implementation details vary by jurisdiction.

Country	Year Enacted	Legislation Name
Sweden	1999	Sex Purchase Act
Norway	2009	Penal Code §202a
Iceland	2009	Penal Code amendment
Canada	2014	Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act (PCEPA)
Northern Ireland	2015	Human Trafficking and Exploitation Act
France	2016	Law strengthening the fight against prostitution
Ireland	2017	Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act
Israel	2020	Prohibition on the Consumption of Prostitution Law

3. Stated Policy Goals

Governments and organizations that support the Nordic Model state that it aims to:

• • Reduce demand for commercial sex
• • Reduce sex trafficking and exploitation
• • Encourage and support people wishing to exit the sex trade
• • Treat people who sell sex as victims of exploitation rather than offenders
• • Advance gender equality by challenging the commodification of sex

Sources: Swedish government policy statements (1999); Norwegian Ministry of Justice (2009); French government rationale for the 2016 law.

4. Key Structural Features

Feature	Description
Criminalizes buyers	Yes
Criminalizes sellers	No (but sellers may face indirect penalties, e.g., eviction, surveillance)
Criminalizes third parties	Yes (drivers, security, receptionists)
Criminalizes shared workspace	Often yes (treated as brothel-keeping)
Allows advertising	Usually no
Allows collective organizing	Restricted
Allows safer indoor work	Restricted

5. Documented and Contested Outcomes

Research on the Nordic Model’s real-world effects is contested. Studies from different disciplinary and ideological perspectives reach different conclusions. The following summarizes findings from multiple sources.

5a. Effects on Demand and Prevalence

Proponent view: Swedish authorities and some researchers report reductions in street prostitution following the 1999 law. The Swedish government has cited this as evidence of reduced demand.

Critical view: Independent evaluations in Sweden, Norway, France found no reliable evidence that overall rates of prostitution or trafficking decreased. Some researchers argue that street-based declines reflect displacement to less visible settings rather than reduction in total activity.

Sources: Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brå); Norwegian Government Evaluation (2014); French Senate Report (2020).

5b. Safety and Working Conditions

Proponent view: Supporters argue that criminalizing buyers shifts legal risk away from sellers and signals state recognition that those in the sex trade are victims rather than criminals.

Critical view: Multiple public-health and human-rights studies report that the model can increase physical risk for sex workers. Researchers describe workers rushing or skipping client screening due to police surveillance of buyers, displacement to more isolated locations, and an inability to work collectively or hire security. Landlords may evict workers to avoid prosecution under brothel-keeping provisions.

Sources: Amnesty International (2016); Human Rights Watch (2019); The Lancet HIV and Sex Work Series (2014); Bedford v. Canada, Canadian Supreme Court (2013).

5c. Reporting of Violence

Proponent view: Some advocates argue that decriminalizing sellers makes them more willing to report violence to police.

Critical view: Research from Norway and France indicates that police contact following a report can expose clients — and therefore income or housing — leading some workers to avoid reporting. Police may confiscate phones or client lists as evidence, further deterring contact.

Sources: Amnesty International (2016); Norwegian Ministry of Justice Review (2014).

5d. Effects on Trafficking

Proponent view: Anti-trafficking organizations supporting the model argue that reducing demand for commercial sex reduces the incentive for trafficking.

Critical view: Independent government evaluations in Sweden, Norway, and France found no reliable evidence that trafficking decreased following adoption of the model. Some evaluations noted that underground markets made trafficking harder to detect and document.

Sources: Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brå); Norwegian Government Evaluation (2014); French Senate Report (2020).

5e. Economic Effects on Workers

Proponent view: Supporters focus on the long-term goal of enabling exit from the sex trade, rather than improving conditions within it.

Critical view: Studies from France and other jurisdictions report that workers experience reduced income, diminished ability to negotiate terms and safety conditions, and increased pressure to accept clients they would otherwise decline.

Sources: Le Bail & Giametta, What Do Sex Workers Think About the French Prostitution Act? (2018); Amnesty International (2016).

6. Who Supports the Nordic Model

Support for the Nordic Model comes from a range of governments, civil society organizations, and academic researchers.

Governments

The governments of Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Canada, Northern Ireland, France, Ireland, and Israel have formally adopted the model. Their official positions frame it as a tool to reduce demand and combat trafficking.

Abolitionist Feminist Organizations

Organizations that view prostitution as inherently incompatible with gender equality tend to support the model even though it doesn’t support the right to bodily autonomy. Examples include Nordic Model Now! (UK), SPACE International (Ireland/UK), the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women (international), and Equality Model US.

Survivor-Led Organizations

Some organizations composed of people who identify as survivors of the sex trade, especially trafficking support the Nordic Model and its associated exit services. Examples include SPACE International, Breaking Free (US), and the Rebecca Bender Initiative (US).

Some Anti-Trafficking NGOs

A subset of anti-trafficking organizations supports the Nordic Model on the basis that reducing demand reduces trafficking. Examples include Shared Hope International, some ECPAT chapters. Note: many anti-trafficking organizations support full decriminalization instead.

Some Religious and Morality-Based Organizations

Certain faith-based groups support the Nordic Model on moral or social grounds. Their reasoning typically centers on opposition to the immoral nature and commodification of sex rather than public-health outcomes.

7. Who Opposes or Raises Concerns About the Nordic Model

Opposition comes from public-health bodies, human-rights organizations, and sex worker-led organizations.

Public-Health and Medical Organizations

The World Health Organization (WHO), UNAIDS, the American Public Health Association (APHA), and The Lancet support full decriminalization of sex work on the basis that criminalization — including partial models — increases health risks and barriers to services.

Human-Rights Organizations

Amnesty International (2016 policy) and Human Rights Watch (2019 report) both call for full decriminalization, citing evidence that the Nordic Model increases safety risks, limits access to health services, and undermines workers’ ability to report violence.

Sex Worker Organizations

The majority of sex worker-led organizations globally oppose the Nordic Model, arguing that it does not reflect the experiences or priorities of people in the consensual sex trade and that it increases harm. These include SWEAT (South Africa), NSWP (global network), SEX (Australia), and many others.

Some Anti-Trafficking Researchers and Organizations

A number of academics and organizations working on trafficking oppose the Nordic Model on the grounds that criminalization (even partial) drives the industry underground, making it harder — not easier — to identify and assist trafficked individuals.

8. Alternative Regulatory Models

The Nordic Model is one of several approaches to regulating or prohibiting commercial sex. Key alternatives include:

• • Full criminalization: Both buying and selling sex are illegal (e.g., parts of the United States). Critics argue this increases harm to sellers without evidence of reducing prevalence.
• • Full decriminalization: Neither buying nor selling is criminalized (e.g., New Zealand since 2003). Supported by most public-health organizations; critics express concerns about normalization and trafficking.
• • Legalization/regulation: Sex work is legal within a licensing framework (e.g., Netherlands, Germany). Critics note mixed evidence on trafficking and worker safety under this model.

Comparative evidence across models is difficult to interpret due to differences in data collection, enforcement, migration patterns, and underground market activity.

9. Data and Methodological Limitations

Research on the Nordic Model and sex work policy generally faces significant methodological challenges:

• • Commercial sex occurs largely outside of official records, making reliable prevalence data difficult to obtain under any regulatory regime.
• • Underground market activity increases when enforcement intensifies, affecting reported figures without necessarily reflecting changes in actual prevalence.
• • Studies vary in methodology, geographic scope, and sample populations, limiting comparability.
• • Many studies are commissioned or produced by organizations with existing policy positions, which may affect framing and conclusions.

Readers are encouraged to consult primary sources and to consider the methodological context of any given study.

10. Primary Sources Referenced

• • Amnesty International. Policy on State Obligations to Sex Workers (2016).
• • Human Rights Watch. Why Sex Work Should Be Decriminalized (2019).
• • The Lancet. HIV and Sex Work Series (2014).
• • Norwegian Ministry of Justice. Evaluation of the Ban on Purchasing Sexual Services (2014).
• • Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brå). Reports on prostitution and trafficking (various years).
• • Le Bail & Giametta. What Do Sex Workers Think About the French Prostitution Act? (2018).
• • Bedford v. Canada. Canadian Supreme Court (2013).
• • French Senate. Report on the 2016 prostitution law (2020).
• • WHO, UNAIDS, APHA. Policy positions on sex work decriminalization (various years).

This fact sheet does not advocate for any particular policy position. It is intended as a summary reference for readers seeking an overview of the Nordic Model and the range of evidence and arguments associated with it.

Fact Sheet Compiled by Debbie Deland

Full decriminalization removes criminal penalties for selling or buying consensual adult sexual services. It does not legalize trafficking, coercion, violence, exploitation, or underage involvement — those remain crimes. Sex work predators are criminals. Decriminalization means:

• Adults can work without fear of arrest

• Workers can report violence without risking prosecution

• Police can focus on actual exploitation, not consensual activity

• Public health agencies can reach people without criminal barriers

• Provides for health services and community support

• Treating consensual sex work as labor, focusing on protecting workers and prosecuting exploitation

• Reduces stigmatization of consensual sex and sex worker.

Whether partial or full criminalization model, there is heightened risk around housing, children, detention, deportation, and banking. Those models are based on the assumption that all sex work involves victimhood. It criminalizes adult sexual freedom. They result in more policing.

Full decriminalization of Consensual Sex work is the model (not the Nordic model) supported by sex‑worker‑led organizations, major human rights groups, and global public health experts, including SWOP USA and its Chapters, Red Canary Song, Black Sex Worker Collective, Desiree Alliance, US PROS Collective, BIPOC-Swop Chapters, NSWP, Red Umbrella Fund, APNSW, ASWA, ICRS/ESWA, Scarlet Alliance, RedTraSex. Butterfly, Dream Defenders, FL Prisoner Solidarity, Equality FL, AIDS Healthcare Foundation, World Health Organization, UNAIDS, The Lancet, APHA, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, etc.

Young feminists and feminists of color show high support for the full decriminalization model (Data for Progress National Polling, Economist Polling). Published positions: Black Feminist Future, SisterSong, National Black Women’s Justice Institute, Mijente, Black Youth Project 100. Younger feminists are more aligned with intersectional, anti‑carceral, and bodily autonomy frameworks [Weitzer, Ronald. Sociology of Sex Work (Annual Review of Sociology, 2018). Wagenaar & Altink. Prostitution Policy in Europe(2012–2020)]. Applying certain moral compasses to fighting against the decriminalization of sex worker clients denies sex workers choice and bodily autonomy. Criminalizing clients has many negative consequences for the sex worker.

All exploitative labor is ILLEGAL under Full Decriminalization. And it’s called human trafficking when it’s illegal. Under Full Decriminalization less than 4 sex workers can work together in the same location without a brothel license. All sex workers can hire bookers, receptionists, drivers, and security with no penalties unless they don’t pay them. A “brothel” can operate as a licensed business (it turns into a legalized (regulated/taxed model) and has to pay for a license, inspections, health codes, safety codes, etc.). Most brothels in New Zealand are independent owners and sex worker co-ops. If you have an illegal brothel, a lapsed license, or an underage victim, it will be shut down and prosecuted.

Why Decriminalization Matters

1. It dramatically increases safety (New Zealand Government, Lancet Medical Journal, WHO. Human Rights Watch, etc.)

• Criminalization of clients forces workers into isolated areas and rushed negotiations.

• Decriminalization allows workers to screen clients, work together, and call police when needed.

• o In New Zealand (decriminalized since 2003): 70% of sex workers report improved safety, No increase in trafficking,workers report greater ability to refuse clients

2. It improves public health

• Criminalization increases HIV risk by disrupting condom negotiation & access to services.

• Decriminalization is associated with lower HIV transmission, better testing, and stronger outreach. Per The Lancet, Decriminalization could reduce HIV infections among sex workers by 33-46% globally.

3. It reduces violence

• Sex workers in criminalized systems experience 7–10× higher rates of violence than the general population. Decriminalization removes the fear of arrest that keeps victims from reporting assault.

4. It strengthens anti‑trafficking efforts

• When workers aren’t criminalized, they can report coercion and exploitation without risking arrest. This improves identification of real trafficking cases.

5. It advances gender, racial, and economic justice

• Criminalization disproportionately harms: Black women, Trans women, Migrant women, Low‑income women, LGBTQ+. Decriminalization reduces policing harm and supports bodily autonomy.

Key Statistics

• 90%+ of sex‑worker‑led organizations worldwide support full decriminalization.

• 7–10× higher violence rates under criminalization.

• No increase in trafficking in countries that have decriminalized.

• 70% of workers in New Zealand report improved safety post‑decriminalization.

• Criminalization increases risk of: Police violence, Housing instability, HIV transmission, Barriers to reporting assault

What Decriminalization Is Not

• It is not legalization (which adds heavy regulations that can still criminalize marginalized workers).

• It is not the Nordic Model, which criminalizes clients and pushes sex work underground.

• It is not deregulation — trafficking, coercion, violence, underage involvement, and exploitation remain fully illegal.

Stories

“I can refuse clients now — before, I couldn’t.” (New Zealand)

“I called the police for the first time in my life.” (New Zealand)

“We work together now — that keeps us safe.” (Abel, Fitzgerald, Brunton)

“Managers can’t threaten us anymore.” (NZ Government Review, Amnesty International)

“I can carry condoms without fear.” (Human Rights Watch, WHO)

“I feel safer working indoors.” (NSW Australia Government Review)

“I left an unsafe situation — and I could, because I wasn’t criminalized.” (NZ Prostitution Law Review)

What These Stories Have in Common: More control over their working conditions, Greater ability to refuse unsafe clients, improved relationships with police, less violence, better health access, more power to leave exploitative workplaces, safer indoor working environments, and stronger peer networks. Women are perfectly capable of deciding whether consensual sex work will be their work

Other Full Decriminalization of Consensual Adult Sex Work References

• Amnesty International. (2016). Policy on State Obligations to Respect, Protect and Fulfill the Human Rights of Sex Workers.https://www.amnesty.org/en/doc…;(amnesty.org in Bing)
• World Health Organization (WHO). (2012). Prevention and Treatment of HIV and Other STIs for Sex Workers.https://www.who.int/publicatio…;(who.int in Bing)
• UNAIDS. (2014). The Gap Report: Sex Workers.https://www.unaids.org/en/reso…;(unaids.org in Bing)
• Global Commission on HIV and the Law. (2012). Risks, Rights & Health. https://hivlawcommission.org/r…
• New Zealand Ministry of Justice. (2008). Report of the Prostitution Law Review Committee on the Operation of the Prostitution Reform Act 2003. https://www.justice.govt.nz/as…(justice.govt.nz in Bing)
• Abel, G., Fitzgerald, L., & Brunton, C. (2009). The Impact of the Prostitution Reform Act on the Health and Safety Practices of Sex Workers. University of Otago. https://www.otago.ac.nz/christ…;(otago.ac.nz in Bing)
• Platt, L., et al. (2018). “Associations between sex work laws and sex workers’ health: A systematic review and meta-analysis.” PLOS Medicine. https://journals.plos.org/plos…;(journals.plos.org in Bing)
• Decker, M., et al. (2015). “Human rights violations against sex workers: Burden and effect on HIV.” The Lancet.https://www.thelancet.com/seri…;(thelancet.com in Bing)
• Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women (GAATW). (2018). Sex Workers Organising for Change.https://gaatw.org/publications…;(gaatw.org in Bing)
• Human Rights Watch. (2019). Why Sex Work Should Be Decriminalized.https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/…;(hrw.org in Bing)
• ACLU. (2020). Is Sex Work Decriminalization a Civil Rights Issue? https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbt…;(aclu.org in Bing)
• Urban Institute. (2014). Estimating the Size and Structure of the Underground Commercial Sex Economy.https://www.urban.org/research…;(urban.org in Bing)
• Global Network of Sex Work Projects (NSWP). (2020). Consensus Statement on Sex Work, Human Rights, and the Law.https://www.nswp.org/resource/…;(nswp.org in Bing)
• Red Umbrella Fund. (2021). Why Decriminalization Matters. https://www.redumbrellafund.or…