Roe v. Wade
410 U.S. 113, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a woman's fundamental right to privacy, which includes the decision to have an abortion. This right is not absolute and is subject to a balancing test against the state's legitimate interests in protecting maternal health and the potentiality of human life, which become compelling at different stages of pregnancy.
Facts:
- Jane Roe, an unmarried and pregnant woman residing in Dallas County, Texas, desired to terminate her pregnancy.
- Roe wished to have the abortion performed by a competent, licensed physician under safe, clinical conditions.
- Texas law criminalized procuring or attempting an abortion, except for those performed on medical advice for the purpose of saving the mother's life.
- Roe was unable to secure a legal abortion in Texas because her life was not threatened by the continuation of her pregnancy.
- Roe could not afford to travel to another jurisdiction where she could obtain a legal and safe abortion.
Procedural Posture:
- Jane Roe filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the District Attorney of Dallas County, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Texas abortion statutes were unconstitutional and an injunction against their enforcement.
- Dr. James Hallford, a physician facing state criminal prosecutions for abortion, was granted leave to intervene as a plaintiff.
- John and Mary Doe, a married couple, filed a companion complaint.
- A three-judge panel of the District Court consolidated the actions.
- The District Court dismissed the Does’ complaint for lack of standing and a justiciable controversy.
- The District Court granted declaratory relief to Roe and Dr. Hallford, finding the Texas statutes void for being unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.
- The District Court denied the plaintiffs' requests for injunctive relief.
- Roe appealed the denial of injunctive relief directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do the Texas criminal abortion statutes, which prohibit abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by infringing upon a pregnant woman's constitutional right to privacy?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Blackmun
Yes, the Texas statutes violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A woman's right to privacy, grounded in the concept of personal liberty, is broad enough to encompass her decision to terminate her pregnancy. This right, however, is not absolute and must be balanced against the state's compelling interests in safeguarding maternal health and protecting potential life. The Court held that a fetus is not a 'person' under the Fourteenth Amendment. To balance these competing interests, the Court established a trimester framework: (1) During the first trimester, the abortion decision is left to the medical judgment of the woman and her physician, free from state interference. (2) From the end of the first trimester through the second, the state may regulate the abortion procedure in ways reasonably related to maternal health. (3) After fetal viability (the start of the third trimester), the state's interest in potential life becomes compelling, and it may regulate and even proscribe abortion, except where necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. Because the Texas statute made no distinctions based on the stage of pregnancy and only permitted an abortion to save the mother's life, it was unconstitutionally broad.
Dissenting - Justice Rehnquist
No, the Texas statutes do not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The 'right to privacy' as defined by the Court is not genuinely at issue, as an abortion is a medical transaction, not a private act in the constitutional sense. The proper standard of review for this type of social legislation is the rational basis test, not the compelling state interest test, and the Texas law has a rational relation to a valid state objective. The historical record shows that when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, at least 36 states or territories had laws restricting abortion, indicating that the Amendment's drafters did not intend to create a constitutional right to abortion. The Court's creation of the trimester framework is an act of judicial legislation rather than constitutional interpretation.
Concurring - Justice Stewart
Yes, the Texas statutes violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The 'liberty' protected by the Due Process Clause is a rational continuum that includes freedom from substantial arbitrary impositions, encompassing personal choice in matters of marriage and family life, as established in cases like Griswold v. Connecticut. This freedom of personal choice necessarily includes the right of a woman to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The inflexible Texas criminal statute is a near-complete abridgment of that personal liberty, and the state's asserted interests are not sufficient to constitutionally support such a broad infringement.
Analysis:
This landmark decision established a woman's constitutional right to an abortion, fundamentally altering the legal landscape of reproductive rights in the United States. By grounding the right in the Due Process Clause's concept of personal liberty and privacy, the Court engaged in a significant application of substantive due process. The creation of the trimester framework provided a structured test for abortion regulations that dominated jurisprudence for decades, invalidating most existing state abortion bans and federalizing the issue. The ruling remains one of the most controversial in the Court's history, galvanizing powerful social and political movements and shaping legal and political discourse for nearly 50 years until it was overturned by Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization in 2022.
Unlock the full brief for Roe v. Wade