This paper traces the legal history of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), from Norma McCorvey's initial challenge to Texas abortion law through the Supreme Court's landmark 7-2 ruling. It examines the procedural path from the district court to the Supreme Court, the constitutional foundations in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, and the doctrine of a fundamental right to privacy derived from earlier decisions in Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird. The paper also evaluates the decision's broad social impact — including the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice movements — and critically analyzes the legal reasoning behind the trimester framework and fetal viability standard, concluding with a discussion of religious freedom, equal protection, and how advances in neonatal medicine may inform future reconsideration of the decision.
The paper exemplifies critical legal analysis — it does not simply describe the Court's holding but interrogates the quality of its reasoning, noting where the constitutional argument rests on judicially invented concepts (the privacy penumbra) rather than textual authority. This technique of separating outcome correctness from reasoning quality is a hallmark of upper-level legal and constitutional scholarship.
The paper opens with a narrative introduction grounding the case in human circumstances, then supplies historical and procedural context. It shifts to doctrinal analysis of the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, pivots to social impact, and closes with a two-part analytical section — one critiquing the legal reasoning and one defending the decision on broader justice grounds. The bibliography follows Chicago-style footnote conventions alongside a full reference list.
In 1969, Norma McCorvey became pregnant and sought to terminate the pregnancy through surgical abortion, but was unable to do so because in her home state of Texas, abortion was illegal except in extreme cases of medical necessity. At that time, only three states in the entire nation permitted elective abortion, and the option to travel to obtain a legal procedure was cost-prohibitive for a poor single woman in McCorvey's position. McCorvey retained attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington and filed suit on her behalf (as "Jane Roe") challenging the Texas law prohibiting abortion in the landmark case Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
The case was eventually appealed all the way to the United States Supreme Court, resulting in a controversial decision invalidating state laws prohibiting elective abortion until the third trimester. Technically, the decision was based on judicial interpretations of privacy principles first introduced in two earlier Supreme Court decisions — Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), and Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972) — that arose in connection with laws prohibiting the use of contraceptives. The much broader social impact was that the decision restored equality to poor women who were unable to travel out of state for a legal abortion. At that time, approximately 10,000 women obtained abortions in the U.S. annually, either by having the procedure performed in one of the three states where it was not prohibited by law or by securing authorization from a physician certifying medical necessity. In most cases, that certification was not factually accurate but rather a courtesy available only to women of comparative wealth and social connections.
In the 1960s and 1970s, the nation underwent substantial social changes in connection with the counterculture revolution, also commonly referred to as the Hippie movement. In addition to questioning authority through political activism, the counterculture emphasized the reevaluation of traditional social mores and moral standards — particularly in the realm of sexual conduct and the recreational use of psychedelic drugs. The popular themes of "free love" and "make love not war" (in relation to the unpopular Vietnam War) gave rise to increased awareness and concern over so-called "reproductive rights" and legislation that unfairly regulated private matters such as the decision to terminate a pregnancy through surgical intervention.
Since 1900, Texas and almost every other state in the nation had enacted legislation prohibiting elective abortion, which contributed considerably to the impoverishment of poor single women and families throughout the country who had little alternative but to raise every child conceived, even by accident. These circumstances affected poor women far more than women of means, because wealthier women could typically travel out of state to terminate a pregnancy legally. In many cases, they were also able to do so without leaving their home states, because socially connected individuals could often secure medical authorization by taking advantage of specific exemptions in state laws for cases of medical necessity. The only alternative available to many women involved risking their lives — as well as criminal prosecution — in so-called back-alley abortions performed by practitioners who lacked formal medical training or licenses.
Norma McCorvey (as "Jane Roe") filed suit at the district level in Texas in 1970, challenging the constitutionality of state laws prohibiting abortion. The Dallas County district attorney, Henry Wade, was the named defendant in the case. The district court ruled in favor of McCorvey but ultimately failed to resolve the matter in a practical sense by refusing to issue an injunction preventing the existing legislation from being enforced. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the case was granted certiorari despite the fact that doing so required suspending the traditional rule that the Supreme Court does not issue advisory opinions on hypothetical or moot situations that have resolved themselves factually before litigation concluded.
By the time the case reached the Supreme Court, McCorvey had already given birth, but the Court entertained the case anyway, reasoning that if traditional standards of mootness and the exclusion of advisory opinions were strictly upheld, no pregnant plaintiff could ever successfully litigate a similar claim before being precluded by mootness. In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of McCorvey, instantly invalidating all state laws prohibiting elective medical abortions. More specifically, the Court ruled that: (1) within the first trimester, the right to an abortion could not be restricted by state law; (2) during the second trimester, states could impose reasonable restrictions based on legitimate medical concerns for the mother; and (3) during the third trimester, states could regulate or prohibit abortions.
At the district court level, the panel of judges in Texas relied primarily on the Ninth and Fourteenth Constitutional Amendments. The Ninth Amendment reads as follows: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Texas district court construed this to mean that the absence of a specific right to privacy from the Constitution's text did not preclude such a right, because it was reserved to the people.
The Supreme Court reached the same conclusion, but instead of relying on the Ninth Amendment rationale articulated by the district court, it applied the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which reads in relevant part: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The Supreme Court determined that the right to obtain an abortion was a fundamental right, which — like voting, marriage, and the right to travel freely — entitled it to the highest level of judicial scrutiny applied to state laws pertaining to abortion. That level of strict scrutiny required that state abortion laws meet a three-pronged test, according to which the state would have to establish: (1) that the legislation served a compelling governmental interest; (2) that it was narrowly tailored to achieve its specific objectives without being either over-inclusive or under-inclusive; and (3) that the governmental objective could not be achieved through any less restrictive means.
Regardless of any technical criticism of the legal analysis underlying the Supreme Court's decision in Roe, it remains the right and moral decision on the issue. Certainly, room exists for improved reasoning, such as in connection with the concept of fetal viability. As is the case in every other field of medicine, neonatal science has progressed dramatically in the three and a half decades since abortion was legalized in the U.S. In that regard, it is perfectly conceivable that medical science will eventually possess the technical capacity to sustain premature infants almost to the point of conception. Just as evolution in end-of-life care has substantially changed aspects of medical law with respect to withdrawing care from terminal patients, continued medical progress in the neonatal field could, at least logically, justify a reexamination of the criteria outlined in Roe as they pertain to fetal viability as the basis for distinguishing the third trimester from the first and second.
You’re 53% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.