Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board, and Supreme Court Precedent
This paper examines four landmark Supreme Court cases — Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, and Bush v. Gore — through the lens of stare decisis and evolving social policy. Drawing on legal scholarship and commentary, the paper argues that each case both reflected and shaped broader social attitudes, particularly regarding civil rights and individual freedoms. It considers how the Court's willingness or reluctance to depart from precedent aligned with — or diverged from — changing national values, and contrasts the more progressive rulings in Brown and Roe with the arguably reactionary outcomes in Plessy and Bush v. Gore.
- Introduction: Abortion, Crime, and the Reach of Roe v. Wade: Roe v. Wade's link to crime rates and social policy
- Stare Decisis and the Role of Precedent in Supreme Court Decisions: How precedent and changing circumstances guide the Court
- Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education: Precedent and Social Change: Racial discrimination, precedent reversal, and societal impact
- Roe v. Wade and Civil Rights as a Common Thread: Civil rights theme linking three major rulings
- Bush v. Gore: National Controversy and Equal Protection: Electoral dispute, minority rights, and stare decisis ignored
- Conclusion: Reactionary and Progressive Decisions Compared: Four cases sorted as reactionary or progressive rulings
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper builds a clear comparative framework, grouping four landmark cases into "reactionary" and "progressive" categories to drive a coherent argument about judicial precedent and social change.
- It uses the concept of stare decisis as a consistent analytical thread, allowing the reader to evaluate each case against the same legal standard rather than treating them in isolation.
- The paper grounds its claims in specific citations from legal journals and commentary, lending credibility to what could otherwise appear as opinion-driven analysis.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective use of a comparative legal analysis framework. Rather than summarizing each case independently, the author draws explicit connections across cases — for example, contrasting Bush v. Gore with Brown v. Board of Education to argue that the former more closely resembles Plessy v. Ferguson in its treatment of minority rights. This technique shows how analytical structure can strengthen an argument without requiring new evidence.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a specific claim about Roe v. Wade's social effects before broadening to a four-case analysis. It then focuses on the Plessy–Brown pair as a model for how precedent interacts with social change, extends this framework to Roe v. Wade, and applies it critically to Bush v. Gore. The conclusion synthesizes the four cases into two contrasting camps — reactionary and progressive — delivering a clear, evaluative ending.
Introduction: Abortion, Crime, and the Reach of Roe v. Wade
The authors of Freakonomics claimed in an interview on the Today Show that the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, which paved the way for legal abortions, also helped the crime rate to drop. That was not the first time that point had been made. Author Steven Levitt had been quoted in an article in the American Prospect in 2001, when he released his contention that there was a stronger link than that between tougher policing and reduced crime rates. That more direct link was between abortion and crime. As the article stated, "Or to be more precise, between the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion and the much heralded fall in crime rates starting about 18 years later, in the early 1990s" (Abramsky, 2001, p. 25). Clearly, if that is true, Roe v. Wade had a major effect on changing social policy; indeed, it was also likely a reaction to changing social policy.
All four of the cases considered here contributed to and were at least partially representative of changing social policy. They also shed some light on the principle of stare decisis, and the implied as well as actual powers of the judiciary.
Stare Decisis and the Role of Precedent in Supreme Court Decisions
An interesting pair of cases in particular helps trace both social attitudes — in this case toward slavery and discrimination — and the use of the stare decisis principle. Those two cases are Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education (Topeka, KS), although all the cases raise questions concerning precedent and why it was, or was not, the deciding factor for the members of the Supreme Court.
One observer, Paulsen, believes that the Supreme Court often uses "changes in factual circumstances or assumptions that could justify departure from precedent" (2000, p. 1529), a viewpoint also articulated in a National Review article (1986, p. 17+). Paulsen notes that it was very likely changed circumstances in the Brown v. Board of Education decision that justified its de facto overruling of Plessy v. Ferguson (Paulsen, 2000).
Works Cited
Abramsky, Sasha. "Did Roe V. Wade Abort Crime?" The American Prospect 1 Jan. 2001: 25. Questia. 26 June 2005
"Courts, Presidents and Precedents." National Review 18 July 1986: 17+. Questia. 26 June 2005
"Has the Supreme Court Gone Too Far? A Symposium." Commentary Oct. 2003: 25+. Questia. 26 June 2005
Kapla, Morton A. "Tribe and Scalia on the Constitution: A Third View." World and I Apr. 1999: 310. Questia. 26 June 2005
Paulsen, Michael Stokes. "Abrogating Stare Decisis by Statute: May Congress Remove the Precedential Effect of Roe and Casey?" Yale Law Journal 109.7 (2000): 1529. Questia. 26 June 2005
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.