Why not accessible? Analysing everyday accounts on the gap between promised and performed accessibility for disabled people

Despite conventions, policies, and regulations highlighting the importance of accessibility in fulfilling human rights, numerous barriers exclude and discriminate against disabled individuals. This article focuses on the gap between promised and performed accessibility. The aim is to explore how inaccessibility is rationalised and transformed into an acceptable, excusable, or even justifiable aspect of contemporary society. The empirical material consists of professionals’ and disabled people’s moral and practical reasoning regarding accessibility, gathered through semi-structured interviews and ethnographic observations conducted in Sweden. Inaccessibility is excused by referring to a lack of knowledge and other circumstances that render accessibility impracticable. Additionally, inaccessibility is justified by emphasising temporal, security, or aesthetic aspects that make accessibility seem unreasonable. Presenting accessibility as impracticable and unreasonable appears crucial for the moral management of disabling barriers and violations of human rights in society.