United States · Abortion · 1973–2022
A constitutional right created, reshaped and overruled
Follow Roe and Casey through clinic-regulation disputes, a divided application of precedent, and Dobbs.
Public historical research, separate from your private cases. Each collection ends at the dates shown. Summaries describe the judgments at that time; they are not a current-law citator or an eligibility assessment. Editorial notes are in English.
The competing arguments
How can a constitutional rule survive for decades, change its test, and then be expressly overruled?
Liberty, reliance and practical access
The opinions protecting abortion access emphasized decisional liberty, the consequences of restrictions and reliance on an established constitutional rule.
History, judicial role and legislative choice
The contrary opinions challenged the constitutional foundation of the right, the courts’ role in reviewing health regulation and whether precedent should preserve a wrongly decided rule.
How the decisions connect
Editorial reading guide. Each connection links to the judgments and explains the kind of disagreement.
Retained and modified
Planned Parenthood v. Caseyrelates toRoe v. Wade
Casey retained the central protection while replacing Roe’s trimester test.
Same outcome, different reasoning
June Medical Services v. Russorelates toWhole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt
Roberts followed the earlier result while disagreeing with its method.
Expressly overruled
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organizationrelates toRoe v. Wade
The 2022 majority rejected the federal constitutional abortion right.
Expressly overruled
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organizationrelates toPlanned Parenthood v. Casey
Casey’s reaffirmation did not prevent later overruling.
The decision timeline
· US Supreme Court
Roe v. Wade
410 U.S. 113 · 7–2
Did the Fourteenth Amendment protect the decision to terminate a pregnancy against Texas’s criminal prohibition?
- What the court decided
- Roe recognized a qualified constitutional abortion right and organized permissible regulation through a trimester framework, with increasing state interests in health and potential life.
- Where the disagreement sits
- Rehnquist and White dissented. The disagreement included the historical foundation for the right and the judiciary’s authority to draw regulatory lines.
- Historical treatment and limits
- Expressly overruled by Dobbs in 2022. Its framework is presented here as legal history.
· US Supreme Court
Planned Parenthood v. Casey
505 U.S. 833 · Fragmented; 5 justices retained Roe’s essential holding
Should Roe survive, and which Pennsylvania requirements could stand?
- What the court decided
- The Court retained the pre-viability protection while replacing the trimester approach with an undue-burden standard. It invalidated spousal notification while allowing other challenged requirements.
- Where the disagreement sits
- The joint opinion invoked liberty, reliance and stare decisis. Some justices wanted stronger protection; others would have overruled Roe. The votes differed by provision and part of the opinion.
- Historical treatment and limits
- Expressly overruled by Dobbs in 2022; do not treat the old undue-burden rule as the present federal abortion-right test.
Read the source and pinpoint
Judgment · 505 U.S. 833505 U.S. pp. 843–879, 887–898; joint opinion and separate opinions
· US Supreme Court
Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt
579 U.S. 582 · 5–3
Did Texas’s admitting-privileges and surgical-center requirements impose an undue burden?
- What the court decided
- The Court invalidated both requirements, assessing the asserted medical benefits against the obstacles to access and reversing the Fifth Circuit.
- Where the disagreement sits
- The dissents challenged the treatment of earlier litigation, the evidence and the scope of judicial review. The majority treated the factual record as central to the constitutional inquiry.
- Historical treatment and limits
- A historical application of Casey’s framework. Read with June Medical’s competing explanations and Dobbs’s later rejection of the constitutional abortion right.
Read the source and pinpoint
Judgment · 579 U.S. 582579 U.S. 582; majority opinion and separate dissents
· US Supreme Court
June Medical Services v. Russo
591 U.S. 299 · 5–4 in the judgment; 4-justice plurality plus Roberts
Could Louisiana enforce a similar admitting-privileges rule after Hellerstedt?
- What the court decided
- The Court reversed the Fifth Circuit and invalidated the Louisiana restriction. Four justices applied Hellerstedt’s benefits-and-burdens analysis.
- Where the disagreement sits
- Roberts supplied the fifth vote on stare decisis grounds while rejecting the plurality’s balancing approach and maintaining that Hellerstedt was wrongly decided. Agreement on the result did not mean agreement on a legal test.
- Historical treatment and limits
- This entry describes a pre-Dobbs abortion-right ruling, not today’s governing abortion-right framework.
Read the source and pinpoint
Judgment · 591 U.S. 299Plurality slip pp. 16–40; Roberts concurrence slip pp. 1–16; separate dissents
· US Supreme Court
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization
597 U.S. 215 · 6–3 in the judgment; 5–4 to overrule Roe and Casey
Could Mississippi prohibit most abortions after 15 weeks, and should Roe and Casey survive?
- What the court decided
- The majority held that the Constitution does not confer an abortion right and expressly overruled Roe and Casey. It evaluated abortion restrictions under rational-basis review.
- Where the disagreement sits
- Roberts would have upheld the 15-week law without fully overruling the precedents. Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan dissented, emphasizing liberty, equality, reliance and the consequences of overruling.
- Historical treatment and limits
- Dobbs changed the federal constitutional baseline. This historical collection does not catalogue subsequent state constitutions, statutes or litigation.
Read the source and pinpoint
Judgment · 597 U.S. 215Majority slip pp. 8–79; Roberts concurrence; joint dissent
Questions worth investigating
- Separate the vote to uphold Mississippi’s law from the vote to overrule Roe and Casey.
- Why is Roberts’s June Medical concurrence important when reading a fragmented judgment?
- Which claims concern the constitutional rule, and which concern evidence about access?
Sources reviewed 2026-11-08. Holdings and separate opinions are summarized in our own words.