Roe v. Wade

law case
verifiedCite
While every effort has been made to follow citation style rules, there may be some discrepancies. Please refer to the appropriate style manual or other sources if you have any questions.
Select Citation Style
Feedback
Thank you for your feedback

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

Join Britannica's Publishing Partner Program and our community of experts to gain a global audience for your work!
External Websites
Britannica Websites
Articles from Britannica Encyclopedias for elementary and high school students.
Print
verifiedCite
While every effort has been made to follow citation style rules, there may be some discrepancies. Please refer to the appropriate style manual or other sources if you have any questions.
Select Citation Style
Feedback
Thank you for your feedback

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

Join Britannica's Publishing Partner Program and our community of experts to gain a global audience for your work!
External Websites
Britannica Websites
Articles from Britannica Encyclopedias for elementary and high school students.

Harry A. Blackmun
Harry A. Blackmun
Date:
1973
Location:
United States
Key People:
Harry A. Blackmun Sarah Weddington Norma McCorvey

Roe v. Wade, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on January 22, 1973, ruled (7–2) that unduly restrictive state regulation of abortion is unconstitutional. In a majority opinion written by Justice Harry A. Blackmun, the Court held that a set of Texas statutes criminalizing abortion in most instances violated a woman’s constitutional right of privacy, which it found to be implicit in the liberty guarantee of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (“…nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”).

The case began in 1970 when “Jane Roe”—a fictional name used to protect the identity of the plaintiff, Norma McCorvey (1947–2017)—instituted federal action against Henry Wade, the district attorney of Dallas county, Texas, where Roe resided. The Supreme Court disagreed with Roe’s assertion of an absolute right to terminate pregnancy in any way and at any time and attempted to balance a woman’s right of privacy with a state’s interest in regulating abortion. In his opinion, Blackmun noted that only a “compelling state interest” justifies regulations limiting “fundamental rights” such as privacy and that legislators must therefore draw statutes narrowly “to express only the legitimate state interests at stake.” The Court then attempted to balance the state’s distinct compelling interests in the health of pregnant women and in the potential life of fetuses. It placed the point after which a state’s compelling interest in the pregnant woman’s health would allow it to regulate abortion “at approximately the end of the first trimester” of pregnancy. With regard to the fetus, the Court located that point at “capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb,” or viability, which occurs at about 24 weeks of pregnancy.

Washington Monument. Washington Monument and fireworks, Washington DC. The Monument was built as an obelisk near the west end of the National Mall to commemorate the first U.S. president, General George Washington.
Britannica Quiz
All-American History Quiz
Who was the original Edsel? When did a U.S. president first appear on TV? Go back in time for the all-American answers.

Repeated challenges since 1973 narrowed the scope of Roe v. Wade but did not overturn it. In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), the Supreme Court established that restrictions on abortion are unconstitutional if they place an “undue burden” on a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus is viable. In Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), the Court upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (2003), which prohibited a rarely used abortion procedure known as intact dilation and evacuation. In Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (2016), the Court invoked its decision in Casey to strike down two provisions of a Texas law requiring abortion clinics to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centres and abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Four years later, in June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Russo (2020), the Court invoked Whole Woman’s Health to declare unconstitutional a Louisiana statute that was, as the majority noted, nearly identical to Texas’s admitting-privileges law.

In May 2021 the Supreme Court agreed to review in its October 2021 term a lower court’s decision to strike down a Mississippi state law, adopted in 2018, that banned most abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy, well before the point of fetal viability. Although the law was plainly unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Mississippi lawmakers passed the measure in the hope that an inevitable legal challenge would eventually make its way to the Supreme Court, where a conservative majority of justices would overturn or drastically reduce the scope of those decisions. The single question that the Court agreed to consider in the case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, was whether all pre-viability abortions are unconstitutional. In May 2022 an apparent draft of a majority opinion in the case, written by Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., was leaked to a political news publication in what would be an extraordinary breach of the traditional secrecy in which the Court conducts its deliberations. The opinion, dated February 2022, indicated that the Court had voted to overturn both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

In May 2021 Texas adopted a law, S.B. 8, that effectively banned almost all abortions beyond the time at which fetal cardiac activity (a “fetal heartbeat”) can be detected, or about the sixth week of pregnancy. The law was unlike several other fetal-heartbeat statutes passed in other states (and subsequently struck down in the courts) in that it shifted responsibility for enforcing the ban from state officials to private citizens. S.B. 8 empowered any citizen to file a civil lawsuit against anyone who performs an abortion, or “aids or abets” the performance of an abortion, of a fetus more than six weeks old. The citizen plaintiffs, if successful in their lawsuits, would be awarded $10,000 plus legal costs (to be paid by the defendants); parties who successfully defended themselves against such lawsuits would not be reimbursed for their legal costs. The law made no exceptions for rape or incest. Because state officials would not be enforcing the law, they presumably could not be named as defendants in any legal action requesting a judge to block enforcement of the law or to declare it unconstitutional.

Two days before S.B. 8 was to take effect (September 1), a group of abortion providers in Texas filed an emergency request with the Supreme Court, asking that it block enforcement of the law or vacate an appeals court ruling that had halted litigation of the providers’ challenge, Whole Women’s Health v. Jackson, in federal district court. After three days a slim majority (5–4) of the Court announced its decision not to intervene, because the providers’ application “presents complex and novel antecedent procedural questions” and because “it is unclear whether the named defendants in this lawsuit”—including two state officials and a prominent antiabortion activist—“can or will seek to enforce the Texas law against the applicants in a manner that might permit our intervention.” The majority stressed, however, that in declining to block enforcement of the law it was not passing any judgment on the law’s constitutionality. In another emergency request filed in October, the U.S. Justice Department asked the Court to vacate an appeals court’s stay of a federal district court’s order, issued in United States v. Texas, temporarily blocking enforcement of the law. Although the Court declined to reinstate the district court’s order, it agreed to an expedited review of both cases on two closely related questions: whether a state can prevent federal court review of a state law by delegating its enforcement to the general public and whether the federal government can bring suit in federal court against Texas state officials and all private citizens to prohibit enforcement of S.B. 8.

The Court issued decisions in the two cases on December 10, 2021. In Whole Women’s Health v. Jackson, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs could pursue a challenge to S.B. 8 in federal court against certain state officials, though it once again declined to enjoin enforcement of the law. In United States v. Texas, the Court declared in a tersely worded opinion that it had wrongly accepted (“improvidently granted”) the Justice Department’s request that it consider reinstating the district court’s stay of S.B. 8. The case was thereby dismissed.

In 1998, having undergone two religious conversions, McCorvey publicly declared her opposition to abortion. However, in the documentary AKA Jane Roe (2020), a dying McCorvey claimed that she had been paid by antiabortion groups to support their cause.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia BritannicaThis article was most recently revised and updated by Brian Duignan.