This paper examines two landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases — Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) — and their combined impact on abortion law in the United States. The paper traces the constitutional right to privacy established in Roe v. Wade, the limitations placed on state intervention, and the viability standard used to determine when abortions may be legally restricted. It then compares these findings to the expanded limitations introduced by Planned Parenthood v. Casey, including mandatory pre-procedure physician visits. The author also offers personal commentary on the reasonableness of these legal boundaries and the autonomy of women in reproductive decisions.
The paper demonstrates effective case comparison: after introducing each ruling independently, the author explicitly contrasts their similarities and differences in a dedicated concluding section. This technique shows how later rulings build on, rather than simply replace, earlier precedent — a key skill in legal writing and constitutional analysis.
The paper opens with historical context for Roe v. Wade, then explains the constitutional rights and state limitations it established. A middle section evaluates those limitations personally and medically. The paper then introduces Planned Parenthood v. Casey and its additional constraints, before closing with a direct comparison of both cases and a concluding argument for women's bodily autonomy.
On January 22, 1973, Roe v. Wade changed the laws surrounding abortion permanently. At the time, the decision to terminate a pregnancy was illegal in Texas, a restriction that was then challenged by the pregnant plaintiff known as Jane Roe. She wanted to end her pregnancy in a safe and lawful manner, and the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in her favor. The ruling was the first time the Court recognized that the constitutional right to privacy encompasses a woman's right to choose whether to continue or terminate a pregnancy. This landmark case not only validated and legalized the right to an abortion, but it also struck down prior laws restricting the act.
Previously, abortion was only permissible when a woman's life was in danger, or when pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, or when the fetus experienced an abnormality in the womb. As a result of this decision, abortion services became available to women across the country in a safe and legal manner. Roe v. Wade became the foundational precedent that went on to influence numerous subsequent legal disputes concerning abortion.
A constitutional right was established by this case, affirming that a woman's right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy is legally protected. However, this right under the umbrella of privacy is not entirely boundless. The state retains the authority to assume responsibility with regard to both the mother and the fetus under certain conditions. Specifically, the Court held that once the second trimester of pregnancy begins, the state has a duty to look after the health of the mother and the potential life she carries.
The Supreme Court affirmed that the state may protect the life of an unborn fetus once it is viable — that is, capable of surviving outside the womb. At that point, the state has the right to prohibit abortion, with the exception of cases in which the woman's life is endangered by the pregnancy. In practical terms, abortions are legal and permissible as long as the fetus cannot yet survive outside the womb, a threshold estimated to fall between approximately twenty-four and twenty-eight weeks of gestation.
These limitations are reasonably set because they protect both the woman and the developing life. During the 1970s, medicine was far less advanced than it is today, and the mortality rate associated with abortion procedures was significantly higher. Today, fewer than 0.3% of women who undergo a termination procedure experience complications — a dramatic improvement from decades past. Legal limitations are also designed to prevent terminations from occurring too late in pregnancy, since the risk to the mother increases as the pregnancy progresses.
Although it remains a contested and sensitive area, this paper aligns with the reasoning of Roe v. Wade in viewing a fetus as a living entity once it is capable of independent survival. The limitations set by the ruling are defensible because what a woman decides to do with her own body is a deeply personal and private matter. As long as her life is not endangered and she chooses to terminate the pregnancy, that decision warrants respect. At the same time, state intervention becomes appropriate when a woman seeks to terminate a pregnancy at an extremely late stage — such as eight months — when the procedure poses serious health risks.
Throughout the decades following Roe v. Wade, various legal cases attempted to challenge or undermine the ruling. One such case was Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, in which Pennsylvania state law was challenged over the restrictions it placed on abortion. The Court ultimately upheld the core holding of Roe v. Wade — affirming that it is a constitutional right for women to choose whether to have an abortion before the point of fetal viability, or when her life is at risk. However, the ruling also affirmed that a woman must visit the physician who will perform the procedure on multiple occasions prior to the operation itself.
The limitation introduced here concerns the mandatory waiting period and multiple required visits before the termination can be performed. This requirement is difficult to justify, given that abortion is not a decision anyone reaches carelessly. A great deal of reflection goes into making the choice to terminate or continue a pregnancy. Regardless of how a woman views the moral status of the fetus, abortion is an invasive procedure with serious physical and emotional dimensions. Mandatory delays imposed by certain facilities can — and do — purposely slow the termination process due to staff members' personal beliefs, effectively forcing some women to carry pregnancies to term against their wishes.
The similarities between the two cases are that they both determined and upheld the legality and constitutional right for women nationwide to decide whether to have an abortion. However, the key difference is that Planned Parenthood v. Casey expanded upon the limitations first established in Roe v. Wade. While the original ruling permitted termination as long as the fetus was not viable outside the womb and the woman's health was not in danger, the 1992 case added procedural requirements — most notably, mandatory multiple pre-procedure visits to the abortion facility.
You’re 86% 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.