Unheard yeses, unseen violence: navigating sexual consent and autonomy for women with disabilities

Abstract

This thesis examines the evolving legal definitions of sexual violence and consent, focusing on the critical intersection of gender and disability. It highlights the significant transition from force-based to consent-based legal frameworks, emphasising the adoption of affirmative consent models supported by international human rights instruments. However, the research uncovers a fundamental challenge: the criminalisation of sexual violence against women with intellectual disabilities often hinges on presumed incapacity to consent, rather than evaluating the actual absence of consent. This reliance on incapacity presumptions can result in both overly protective measures that restrict positive sexual autonomy and insufficient safeguards that fail to prevent exploitation. Using an interdisciplinary methodology that combines legal doctrine, feminist theory, human rights law, and disability studies, the thesis investigates how intersectional discrimination impacts the experiences of women with disabilities as they navigate consent and justice systems. Through comparative analysis of Italy, Germany, and Sweden—representing different legal consent models (traditional, “no means no", and “only yes is yes”)—the study evaluates how these frameworks balance protecting women with disabilities from sexual violence while recognising their sexual agency. The findings suggest that while affirmative consent models present the most inclusive approach, legal reform alone is insufficient to address these complex issues. Persistent stereotypes and rape myths continue to marginalize women with intellectual disabilities, and such discriminatory attitudes may resurface even under the most progressive laws. The thesis calls for comprehensive judicial training and accessible sexuality education specifically tailored to women with disabilities' needs, empowering them to understand, communicate, and exercise sexual consent, ultimately bridging the gap between legal principles and lived experiences.