Utgångspunkten i denna uppsats koncentrerades till författningarna kring skyddet mot könsdiskriminering och religionsfrihet med anledning av det så kallade ?handskakningsfallet?. Syftet var att kartlägga hur lagstiftningen kring dessa två diskrimineringsgrunder korresponderade, i ett fall där rättigheterna upplevs kollidera med varandra. Grunderna för könsdiskriminering och en definition av begreppet ?kön? finns tydligt reglerat både i lagstiftning och praxis, dock är det ett faktum att det inte existerar något enhetligt begrepp för vad religion egentligen är, varken i nationell eller internationell lagstiftning.

Freedom of religion or belief is indisputable in Human rights discourse, more discussed is exactly what it is that is included in the concept of freedom of religion or belief (in Swedish: religionsfrihet). This thesis focuses on the freedom of religion or belief in a European context, in particular on the European court of human rights and article 9 in the European convention for human rights. Some criticism has been directed against the Court to the effect that its practice and verdicts don't answer to the pronounced desire to develop a pluralistic and inclusive form of freedom of religion or belief.My aim is to examine, analyse and test three different theories, which all try to develop alternatives to the expression freedom of religion or belief, in relation to six verdicts from article 9 in Europe convention. My basic purpose is to try to find new ways of talking about freedom of religion or belief that might lead to a more inclusive, pluralistic and equal interpretation of that concept.The three theories wich I use are elaborated by Richard Amesbury (associate professor at Claremont school of Theology); Hugo Strandberg (TD at Åbo Akademi) and Eberhard Herrmann (professor in philosophy of religion at Uppsala University); and Martha Nussbaum (professor of law and ethics at the University of Chicago). The six cases from the European court are: X v.