Roe, a Texas resident, sought to terminate her pregnancy by abortion. Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant woman's life. After granting certiorari, the Court heard arguments twice. The first time, Roe's attorney -- Sarah Weddington -- could not locate the constitutional hook of her argument for Justice Potter Stewart. Her opponent -- Jay Floyd -- misfired from the start. Weddington sharpened her constitutional argument in the second round. Her new opponent -- Robert Flowers -- came under strong questioning from Justices Potter Stewart and Thurgood Marshall.
Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion?
7-2 for Jane Roe
Majority Opinion:
The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court's ruling.
Dissenting Opinion:
Justices White and Rehnquist wrote the dissenting opinions. They argued that they see new constitutional reasoning for the Court’s decision. While White may agree with the Court’s values and priorities, he saw “no constitutional warrant for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the states.” Furthermore, they argued that the majority used the 14th Amendment in a way that would be wholly foreign to the amendment’s authors.