Abstract
This article investigates how objectivity is performed and embodied in Swedish rape trials, where legal decisions often hinge on oral testimonies rather than technical evidence. Drawing on the sociology of emotions and feminist legal theory, the article challenges the positivist notion of objectivity as dispassionate detachment. Instead, it conceptualizes objectivity as a situated and emotionally regulated practice, co-produced through empathic translation and imagination. Based on ethnographic fieldwork-including observations, interviews with legal professionals, and analysis of 18 rape cases-the study shows how empathy serves as a critical epistemic tool in the courtroom. Judges and other legal actors must translate everyday experiences into legal logics while maintaining impartiality. Concepts such as himpathy and herasure (Manne), female fear, and male fear are used to explore how gendered norms shape credibility assessments and emotional orientations in rape trials. The article argues that empathy does not undermine objectivity, but rather constitutes its condition in cases where normative assumptions and lived experiences diverge. Harding's standpoint epistemology and concept of strong objectivity inform a model of legal reasoning that is reflexive, perspectival, and emotionally attuned. The study identifies how empathic trials-where legal actors actively engage with gendered perspectives-can counteract testimonial and hermeneutical injustice, thus fostering more equitable adjudication. Ultimately, the article advocates for a reconceptualisation of objectivity as embodied and relational, particularly crucial in the legal treatment of sexual violence.