I have a few.
Ok, to begin with, the judge is saying that Sweden's rape law is formulated like so: in order for a defendant to be guilty of rape...
The defendant must intend to have sex with the victim.
The defendant must have sex with the victim.
The victim must not consent to the sex.
The defendant must intend the sex to be non-consensual.
In the US rape laws are formulated a lot of different ways, but here is what I would say is standard:
The defendant must intend to have sex with the victim.
The defendant must have sex with the victim.
The victim must not consent to the sex.
The defendant must intend the sex to be non-consensual.
Despite the victim's lack of actual consent, the defendant may raise an affirmative defense of 'mistake of fact' where the defendant alleges that based on the circumstances of the sex, the defendant honestly believed the sex to be consensual. But only if that honest belief is objectively reasonable.
I don't know if Swedish criminal law actually operates like that judge says it operates, but in the US, it would not fly. And let's be honest, the acquittal in Sweden relied on the judge's credibility determination - the judge decided that the defendant was being honest when the defendant asserted that he thought the victim consented. Who knows, maybe the judge is right. Seems pretty damn unlikely, though.