Sofia Zetterlund—Ulrika Wendin

Sofia Zetterlund’s relationship with Ulrika Wendin is a therapeutic one, begun through Jeanette Kihlberg’s intervention and marked by Sofia’s effort to make trust possible before asking Ulrika to approach painful experiences. The sessions move from establishing a sense of alliance to recognizing the breadth of Ulrika’s distress and connecting it, cautiously, to an event seven years earlier. Sofia’s continued concern after their first meeting shows both her commitment to keeping the door open and the limits of what can be concluded about Ulrika’s willingness or ability to continue treatment.

Referral and first contact

The relationship develops out of a conversation between Jeanette Kihlberg and Ulrika Wendin outside a bar. Ulrika sits on the window ledge, and Jeanette offers her a cigarette before returning to the subject of Karl Lundström. Jeanette asks whether Ulrika has told her everything she meant to disclose. The scene establishes that Ulrika has been carrying information about Karl, but it also shifts attention from what she can provide to what she may need: Jeanette recognizes that she needs help and raises therapy as a possibility.

Jeanette names Sofia as the psychologist and tells Ulrika that an appointment could be arranged as early as the following week. The referral gives Ulrika a route into treatment without making Jeanette herself the person responsible for treating her. Sofia and Ulrika’s professional connection therefore begins within a wider relationship of concern: Jeanette has heard Ulrika’s account, sees that support is needed, and directs her toward a clinician.

Their first meeting takes place at Sofia Zetterlund’s Clinic at Mariatorget. The shift from the bar-side conversation to the clinic places Ulrika in a setting where her difficulties can be addressed as more than a disclosure made to a police officer. Yet an appointment does not itself establish trust or guarantee that Ulrika will return. Sofia approaches the first session with that uncertainty in mind, treating the possibility of connection as something to build rather than assume.

Establishing trust through attention

Sofia’s early method centers on mirroring: observing another person’s physical signals, including movement and facial expression, and responding in ways that may help the person feel recognized and supported. Her aim is for Ulrika to identify with her and sense that Sofia is on her side. If Ulrika begins to mirror Sofia in turn, Sofia can make small adjustments to her own body language in the hope that Ulrika will feel more at ease. The method is presented as deliberate, attentive work, not as an instant cure or a substitute for Ulrika’s own participation.

That emphasis matters because Ulrika’s distress reaches into ordinary bodily and daily functions. Sofia learns of nightmares, compulsive behavior, panic attacks, stiffness, and insomnia, as well as disgust associated with both eating and drinking. The range of these difficulties makes clear that the matter is not confined to a single conversation about Karl. Ulrika’s suffering affects her sense of safety and her relationship to everyday routines, and Sofia must listen to a pattern rather than treat one symptom as the whole problem.

Ulrika also describes moments when she wrongly believes that she invited the humiliation and rape she experienced. She knows at other times that this interpretation is not true, but says that shame can make it feel convincing when she wakes. The conflict between what she knows and what she sometimes feels reveals how self-blame persists even when she can recognize its unfairness. Sofia’s role in the exchange is to hear this contradiction without treating the self-accusation as an accurate account of responsibility.

From disclosure to a longer history

A small sign of contact carries particular weight for Sofia: Ulrika thanks her, and Sofia takes that response as evidence that she has reached her. She infers from it that Ulrika is not accustomed to being seen for who she is. This is Sofia’s reading of the interaction, not proof that the therapeutic bond is secure. The significance lies in the contrast between Ulrika’s apparent lack of such recognition and the tentative moment of acknowledgment between patient and therapist.

Sofia does not assume that one meeting will be enough. She decides to call Ulrika the next day to ask whether she has reconsidered and is ready to return the following week. If that approach does not work, Sofia plans to suggest that Jeanette visit Ulrika during the week. The plan keeps more than one route to contact open, while also making clear that Ulrika’s return remains uncertain. The evidence establishes Sofia’s intention to follow up, not that the call or visit takes place or that Ulrika resumes therapy.

In a later session, Sofia asks Ulrika to explain what pleasure is. The question moves beyond a catalogue of symptoms toward Ulrika’s ability to identify a positive experience. Sofia’s subsequent understanding is that Ulrika’s condition—including possible anorexia, self-loathing, relatively low-level alcoholism, and a history of abusive and exploitative boyfriends—probably goes back to one event seven years earlier. The connection is Sofia’s clinical interpretation: the past event appears to organize several later difficulties, but the account does not establish that every problem has a single cause or describe a completed course of treatment.

The relationship’s significance and limits

Sofia and Ulrika’s relationship links practical care with the difficult work of witnessing trauma. Jeanette’s referral creates an opening; Sofia tries to make that opening usable through attentive observation, a nonjudgmental response, and a plan to maintain contact. Ulrika’s account of shame gives the sessions a focus beyond gathering facts about Karl Lundström: the therapeutic task includes confronting a mistaken sense of personal responsibility and the ways a traumatic experience continues to shape self-perception.

The progression remains provisional. Sofia’s attention to mirroring, her interpretation of Ulrika’s thanks, and her plan to check in all demonstrate effort to foster connection, but none establishes a lasting therapeutic alliance or recovery. The relationship is therefore defined as much by careful intention as by what remains unresolved. Its decisive movement is from referral to an initial act of recognition, then toward a broader understanding of how an earlier event may still govern Ulrika’s present distress.