Eh, not everything the GP said has proper context.
1) It didn't "turn nonconsensual." She said "no," fell asleep, and work up with him penetrating her.
2) He didn't leave "with the agreement of the authorities." He asked if they could hold him, and they reluctantly said no, because they couldn't. He then left. "We don't have enough to hold you yet" is not the same as "you're totally fine and won't be hearing from us again." He didn't do anything wrong by leaving, but don't make it out like he was cleared in some way. He wasn't.
3) "Hasn't been charged" fails to understand the nature of the Swedish criminal justice system. In the US, you get charged, then investigated further, then indicted (or information), then arraigned, then tried. In Sweden, "charged" is basically like "arraigned." It comes at the end of the process. So saying "he hasn't even been charged" is misleading. If it were a US court, he would have already been charged and indicted, only needing to be arraigned and tried. He would already be a fugitive from justice.
Sweden hasn't done anything wrong in their pursuit of Assange. What is messed up is the UK spending 15M pounds for a rape suspect. That looks like politics. But Sweden's just following their laws in a way that's completely normal for them. However it looks strange to us because Swedish criminal justice procedure is part inquisitive and part adversarial, unlike the US system which is wholly adversarial.