A Greenland reconciliation commission could become the next step in dealing with the legacy of the contraception case, after Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen proposed a joint process with Denmark and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen publicly backed the idea. The proposal followed the publication of two expert reports examining the human rights aspects of contraceptive practices imposed on Greenlandic women and girls.
The reports, published by the Government of Greenland and subsequently submitted to the Danish Parliament, agree that women were subjected to serious violations of their rights, but differ on some of the most important legal conclusions, including the question of genocide.
Frederiksen said Denmark and Greenland should now deal with the political consequences together.
“A reconciliation commission gives us the opportunity to look back at the darkness in our shared history, engage with it critically and acknowledge the pain it may have caused,” she said in a statement released by the Danish Prime Minister’s Office.
A Greenland reconciliation commission after years of investigations
The contraception case, widely known as the IUD case or spiralsagen, concerns the use of contraceptive devices and other forms of birth control on Greenlandic women and girls, often without informed consent.
A joint Danish-Greenlandic historical investigation published in 2025 found that more than 4,000 women and girls received IUDs or contraceptive injections between 1966 and 1991. Some were as young as 12. Danish authorities were responsible for Greenland’s healthcare system until the beginning of 1992.
The latest investigation had a different purpose. Naalakkersuisut, the Government of Greenland, appointed an expert group in 2024 to assess the case under international human rights law, Indigenous peoples’ rights and the UN Genocide Convention.
Internal disagreements eventually divided the four experts into two groups, producing two separate reports. Naalakkersuisut decided that both should be published and subjected to external peer review. The government explained the split earlier this year.
The reports agree on rights violations but differ on genocide
Both reports concluded that contraceptive procedures performed without valid consent violated the rights of the women involved, including their rights to private and family life. In some cases, the treatment amounted to degrading treatment.
Their conclusions become less aligned when addressing whether the practices constituted genocide.
The report by Dalee Sambo Dorough and Miriam Cullen found a reasonable basis to conclude that Kalaallit Inuit women suffered violations of rights including equality, non-discrimination and protection from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
It did not conclude that genocide had been established solely on the evidence relating to contraception. However, the authors argued that genocidal intent could remain a possible legal inference if the contraception programme were considered together with other historical policies affecting Greenlandic families and children. They also found reasonable grounds to believe that Denmark may have breached its obligation under the Genocide Convention to prevent genocide after becoming aware of a serious risk. Such a determination would ultimately have to be made by a court.
The separate report by Jonas Christoffersen and Jensine Nedergaard reached a firmer conclusion that the available evidence did not demonstrate an intention by Danish or Greenlandic authorities to destroy the Greenlandic population.
The Government of Greenland said an external peer review found that this second report did not meet recognised scientific standards. Its authors have disputed that assessment.
The disagreement means that the publication of the reports has not settled the broader political and legal debate surrounding the case.
Denmark has already approved compensation
The reports arrived immediately after the Danish Parliament approved an individual compensation scheme for Greenlandic women subjected to contraception without consent between 1960 and 1991.
Under the law approved by the Folketing, eligible women can receive DKK 300,000, around €40,100, from the Danish state. Applications can be submitted until September 1, 2028.
The Ministry of Health estimates that approximately 4,500 women could qualify for the scheme.
Frederiksen had already formally apologised in Nuuk in 2025 on behalf of Denmark to women affected while Copenhagen was responsible for Greenland’s healthcare system. Nielsen separately apologised for cases that occurred after Greenland assumed responsibility for healthcare.
In her latest statement, Frederiksen stressed that neither the apology nor financial compensation should be regarded as closing the case.
She said the pain caused by the procedures, including physical harm, lost opportunities to have children and discrimination against Greenlandic women, could not be undone through compensation.
Reconciliation could become the next political phase
Nielsen’s proposed reconciliation commission would therefore move the debate beyond compensation and towards the wider relationship between Greenland and Denmark.
Frederiksen said the political process following the reports would be handled jointly with Naalakkersuisut and described the commission proposal as a way of developing a future relationship based on trust, respect and equality.
Important questions remain unresolved, including the commission’s mandate, membership and whether its work would extend beyond the contraception case to other aspects of the historical relationship between Denmark and Greenland.
The disagreement between the expert reports also means that the legal debate over genocide is unlikely to disappear. Greenlandic political actors have already called for the issue to be assessed internationally.
What has changed is the political response. After the investigations, apologies and compensation scheme, both governments are now signalling that the contraception case should form part of a broader process of confronting their shared history rather than being treated as a closed chapter.
