Evolving Jurisprudence: Legal and Social Shifts in Reproductive Rights
- Esha Salman
- Oct 14, 2024
- 3 min read
On a stormy spring morning in 1970, a 22-year-old unmarried woman sat across from her attorneys in a small Dallas office. She was seeking the right to terminate her pregnancy—a right that was only granted if the mother’s life was in danger. Her case eventually made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In a 7-2 decision in 1973, the Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade sent shockwaves, establishing a constitutional right to abortion under the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause. However, nearly fifty years later, in 2022, another landmark ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization dismantled this framework, leaving reproductive rights in the hands of individual states. What changed? The answer lies not only in legal reasoning, but in the growing power of public discourse, activism, and media in shaping judicial decisions.
Public sentiment and media narratives are inextricably linked with the evolution of reproductive rights jurisprudence. This article aims to understand how public discourse swayed the Court in both Roe and Dobbs in an attempt to discern how legal frameworks might continue to evolve in a polarized, media-driven society, and how courts can balance legal impartiality with societal demands.
Historical Context: The Legal Evolution of Reproductive Rights
The right to privacy, invoked in Roe, had first been rooted by the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) on grounds that the Constitution protected a right to privacy in marital relations. This was instrumental for Roe, where the Court held that a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy fell within this larger right to privacy under the 14th Amendment.
Legal reasoning in Roe was firmly grounded in the notion that a woman's decision to have an abortion was of a personal nature and thus connected with her right to privacy. The Court acknowledged that states have legitimate interest in protecting potential life, but this should be weighed against the interests of the woman. Public opinion at the time favored the change, inspired by the rising feminist movement. Through activists and heavy media coverage, abortion was framed as something personal, not political.
The Rise of Public Commentary and Activism Post-Roe
The years succeeding Roe saw heightened political and public polarization of abortion attitudes. The 1980s and 1990s were especially notable for the emergence of voices on the Right, such as the Moral Majority, which strongly harbored anti-abortion rhetoric. Public opinion itself became more polarized regarding abortion; as documented by Pew Research data, opposition to abortion rights hardened decidedly in those decades.
This public backlash had a direct impact on judicial interpretations of reproductive rights. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the Supreme Court upheld Roe, but allowed for more state regulations signaling that public pressure was beginning to influence judicial decisions. The Casey decision introduced the "undue burden" standard that allowed states to impose restrictions on abortion so long as they did not place substantial obstacles for women seeking the procedure. While the core holding of Roe was left intact, the influential role of public discourse became increasingly undeniable.
The Dobbs Era: Judicial Backlash to Shifting Social and Political Tides
In 2022, the Supreme Court's ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization marked a dramatic shift in reproductive rights jurisprudence. The decision completely overturned Roe, returning questions of abortion back to state legislatures. The majority opinion, penned by Justice Samuel Alito, relied extensively upon historical legal traditions and rejected the idea that abortion was a constitutional right under the Due Process Clause.
The public opinion grew noisier, with Twitter and Facebook serving as newest battle lines for pro-choice and pro-life activists alike. The Court gained increasing awareness of abortion's politically charged atmosphere.
Balancing Legal Neutrality and Societal Demands
The Dobbs decision threw into sharp focus the most profound question presently facing the judiciary: whether courts can be neutral in an increasingly polarizing public debate. Though the principle of stare decisis might normally encourage courts to stand by their earlier decisions, the rollover of Roe suggests that public and political pressures are beginning to bear harder upon the Court's decisions.
With reproductive rights continuing to shift, courts increasingly must work out how to balance legal neutrality with public opinion. After all, reproductive rights jurisprudence occurs at the juncture of law and public opinion. The movement from Roe to Dobbs reflects greater questions of autonomy, morality, and state authority. As political confrontation intensifies, the future course of reproductive rights will depend on legal precedent and the continuing interplay between law and society. Understanding this dynamic is increasingly important as courts and legislatures develop an evolving idea of reproductive rights.
Image Source: People's World
Comments