NAME: SOUMYA RANJAN

REGISTRATION NO.: 2041802098

COURSE: BA.LLB(H) 2020-25

SECTION: B

TOPIC : CASE ANALYSIS ON ROE vs. WADE

SUBMITTED TO: MS. SNIGDHA BISWAL

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Ms. Snigdha Biswal who gave me this opportunity
and guided me in the class about the topic. I would like to further extend my gratitude to Dr
S.A.K.Azad of SOA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF LAW for this golden opportunity.

Name : Soumya Ranjan

Date : 29.05.2023

2
INDEX
1. FACTS…………………………………………………………………...4
2. ISSUES RAISED AND CONTENTION OF THE PARTIES….….....5
3. JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT………………..…………………….6-7
4. OBITER DICTA AND RATIO DECIDENDI ……..………………….7-8
5. CONCLUSION………………………………….………………………9

3
 FACTS

• McCorvey was expecting her third child and desired an abortion. However, abortion was
prohibited in Texas at the time, unless done to save the pregnant woman's life. In 1969, she
filed a class action suit on behalf of several other women who wanted abortion to be
legalized.
• The case was filed in accordance with the First, fourth, fifth, ninth, and fourteenth
amendments to the United States Constitution.
• Roe was not allowed to have an abortion since there was no danger to her life; she
previously had two children who were adopted.
• Roe had two choices: she could travel to a distant state where abortion was allowed, or she
could pay a large sum of money for an abortion that would be performed in secrecy.
• She was sent to two solicitors, Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee after she was
unsuccessful in obtaining an illegal abortion. Then she went to the district court and
demanded the right to abort her third kid.
• The district court of Texas granted declaratory relief rather than an injunction, ruling that
the abortion restrictions are illegal and unconstitutional, as well as violating the appellant's
right to privacy under the ninth and fourteenth amendments. As a result, it was
unconstitutional.
• The district attorney for Dallas County, on the other hand, has stated that he will continue
to pursue the doctors who performed abortions.
• An appeal was filed against Henry Wade in the United States Supreme Court, seeking
injunction enforcement and the right to abortion.1

1
Roe vs. Wade [1973] 410 U.S 113

4
ISSUES RAISED

1. Does the right of women to abortion fall under the purview of the fourteenth amendment's right
to privacy?

2. Is the right to abortion an absolute right, and to what extent can the state intervene?

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

There were many contentions raised by the parties, however, for the purpose of brevity the main
contentions are summarized below2

Respondent’s Contention

1. Texas has the authority to reserve concerns concerning health, the preservation of parental life,
and the maintenance of medical standards.

2. Because the fourteenth amendment protects the foetus, it also has the authority to restrict
abortion.

3. It is in the best interests of the state to protect the parental life.

Appellant's contentions:

1. The Texas law's interference with an individual's right to privacy is unjustified.

2. It also violates women's constitutionally guaranteed rights to life, sexual privacy, marital, and
familial rights.

3. Abortion is an absolute right, and women have the freedom to terminate it whenever they desire.

2
Alex McBride, ‘Roe vs. Wade’, (Case Analysis on Roe vs. Wade 2006) <The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil
Rights . Landmark Cases . Roe v. Wade (1973) | PBS (thirteen.org)> accessed on 21 May 2023

5
JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT

While dealing with the first problem, the Supreme Court stated unequivocally that, while the right
to abortion is not directly specified in the fourteenth amendment,3 it is a component of it. After
reviewing the facts of the case, the court reached this conclusion.

The Court ruled that the right to privacy guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment applies to
women's right to abortion, which is a basic choice guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment to the
United States Constitution. The court also stated that forcing a woman to carry on an undesired
pregnancy is harmful to women's physical and emotional well-being. After rejecting the state's
position that constitutional protection begins at conception, the court stated that the term "person"
is undefined in the US Constitution and hence only gives protection to born or naturalized citizens.
Following this, and after reviewing comparable cases, the court determined that unborn children
have never been recognized as individuals under the US Constitution, and hence are not entitled
to legal protection.4

In determining the status of an unborn child, the court considered numerous points of view. A
child's life begins at birth according to Jewish belief, whereas life begins at conception according
to Catholic belief. Doctors, on the other hand, think that life begins before birth. However, the
Court refused to favour any single faith's point of view. Rather, it stated, "We do not agree that by
adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman at stake."

In dealing with the second issue, the court held that because the right to privacy is recognized as a
fundamental right by the US Constitution, the state has the authority to establish laws to ensure
the smooth running of society.

Keeping both points of view in mind, the court attempted to strike a balance between the interests
of the state and the rights of women. The court recognized that pregnant women's rights may
collide with the state's right to safeguard human life.

The pregnancy was classified into 12-week trimesters by the court. Abortion is legal in the first
trimester if performed by a licensed doctor in a medically safe environment, and the state has no

3
The Constitution of Unites States 1787,( Fourteenth Amendment) Order 1868
4
Roe vs. Wade [1973] 410 U.S 113

6
authority to control it. The state has minimal say in the second trimester and can only control it if
the regulations are directly or indirectly related to the health of the pregnant lady. In the third
trimester, the state's right takes precedence over women's rights; the state may prohibit abortion
unless and until it is required to safeguard the woman's health and life.

OBITER DICTA

Taking Georgia's abortion restrictions into account, Justice Blackmun's judgement was provided,
and it was observed that it had a modern cast and reflects current attitudinal shifts, advanced
medical knowledge and practice, and new thinking about an old topic. The court was to the
conclusion that the abortion debate is highly emotional and sensitive. Arguments on abortion are
influenced by one's experience, philosophy, attitude towards life and family, and morals.5

Furthermore, population expansion, pollution, poverty, and racial disparities only exacerbated
rather than solved the situation. The Constitution was written for people who hold fundamentally
different opinions; the mere fact that we find certain opinions natural and familiar, or novel and
even shocking, should not lead us to conclude that statutes enacting them violate the United States
Constitution.'

RATIO DECIDENDI

The Texas abortion laws of 1961 were enacted for three main reasons.

1. To deter unlawful sexual encounters

2. To safeguard women from potentially dangerous abortion procedures.

3. To protect the state's interest in the sanctity of life

The court did not take the first argument seriously by declaring it to be conventional. Because
medical technology has advanced, the court ruled that the second reason was no longer valid. The

Roe vs. Wade [1973] 410 U.S 113

7
third justification was partially rejected by the court since a pregnant woman cannot be convicted
for abortion.6

The court reasoned in reaching its ruling that because the right to abortion is protected under the
right to privacy, it is subject to reasonable constraints imposed by the state. However, when
women's privacy trumps the state's interest in protecting the mother and fetus's lives during the
first trimester, it expands throughout the pregnancy.

The rule of law was applied: it was determined that the right to abortion is guaranteed by the
Constitution and that the state has the authority to restrict abortion once the foetus reaches viability.

6
‘Roe v. Wade’,(case summary on Roe v. Wade 2017), < Roe v. Wade - Case Summary and Case Brief
(legaldictionary.net)> accessed on 22 May,2023

8
CONCLUSION

The momentous decision cleared the way for abortion regulations in the United States that
recognized women's freedom to choose when it came to terminating their pregnancy. It guaranteed
the right to end abortion in the first trimester. Only after this case did India passed the Medical
Termination of Pregnancy Act in 1971. However, on June 24, 2022, the United States Supreme
Court overturned the case of Roe vs. Wade and removed the constitutional right to abortion 7.
Several US states outlawed abortion shortly after the decision. According to the World Health
Organisation, 'health' is a basic fundamental right, which means that every person has the right to
govern their own health and body and decide what is good and harmful for them.

This right also encompasses access to sexual and reproductive information and services free of
violence and discrimination, demonstrating that a person is the boss of his or her own body, which
cannot be prohibited by law. Abortion is an extremely delicate and emotive topic, and it has the
power to elicit strong feelings from people. Most women are not forced to have abortions in
countries where abortion is legal and safe, but in countries where abortion is criminalised and
banned, women may be forced to carry undesired pregnancies, which can have negative
repercussions for their bodies. In the year 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee asserted that
Access to abortion and prevention of maternal mortality are Human Rights.8 The committee took
three years to make a decision on the Right to Life. This woman believes she has the right to health
and bodily autonomy. And these rights should be prioritized among all human rights.

All laws and structural impediments that impede women and girls from having effective access to
abortion should be removed by the states. The state should improve the environment for women
and provide legal, effective, and safe access to abortion, including pregnancies that potentially
harm the mother's health or cause her severe pain or suffering, as well as pregnancies caused by
rape or incest. A mother who wants to abort her baby due to conscientious concerns should have
the same freedom. There is a much-needed system in place that can hold the government
accountable for the high proportion of maternal mortality caused by unsafe abortions.

7
Apurva Vishwanath, ’Supreme Court’s abortion ruling’, The Indian Express (New Delhi, 30 September) 3
8
Center For Reproductive Rights ( Comment on abortion rights, 2023) < Center for Reproductive Rights> accessed
on 24 May,2023

9
Many things must be done to successfully implement this right for women. The first step is for
every state to respect women's rights and the decision of whether to have an abortion or not should
be left to the woman and her doctor. Everyone should understand that a woman has the right to
choose what is best for her body and that she should not be denied this choice regardless of the
circumstances.

10