Roe v. Wade

Background

A single pregnant woman living in Dallas (called "Jane Roe") sued the county district attorney to challenge Texas criminal abortion laws that made most abortions a felony, except to save the mother's life. A doctor and a married couple joined the litigation; the district court invalidated the Texas statutes and handled requests for class and injunctive relief differently for each plaintiff.

Reasoning

The Court framed the core question as whether the Constitution’s protection of personal liberty includes a woman’s decision to end a pregnancy. The majority held that the Constitution protects that private decision, but the right is not unlimited. It set a three-part rule: before about the end of the first trimester, the doctor and patient may decide to end the pregnancy without state interference; after the first trimester the State may regulate to protect the mother’s health; and after the fetus is viable the State may outlaw abortions except when needed to preserve the mother’s life or health. The Court also dismissed the doctor’s separate challenge because of pending state criminal prosecutions and held the married couple lacked a present case or controversy.

Real world impact

The decision invalidated Texas’s statutory scheme as written and required states to treat early and late pregnancy differently. It leaves room for states to set medical or facility rules after the first trimester and to restrict abortions after fetal viability, while protecting earlier medical judgment. The Court assumed local authorities would respect the ruling and noted a companion case addressing procedural rules.

Dissents or concurrances

A concurring opinion agreed the right of personal liberty covers the abortion choice. A dissent argued the Court overreached, questioned whether the record presented a first-trimester plaintiff, and urged deference to long-standing state laws and legislative judgments.