Title: Roe v. Wade Case Brief
Headings: v.
Roe v. Wade
Roe v. Wade Summary
Key Players in Roe v. Wade
Roe v. Wade Brief
Roe v. Wade Facts
The Roe v. Wade Decision
Key Takeaways for Law Students

Content: The Court, in its decision, started by examining the standing of the appellants to file the lawsuit. The Court found a “logical nexus between the status asserted and the claim sought to be adjudicated”, noting that Roe had standing based on her status as a single, pregnant woman who was denied access to an abortion based on the Texas anti-abortion law. It also noted that the fact that Roe’s pregnancy had already ended was irrelevant to the issue of standing because any pregnancy that is the subject of a lawsuit cannot be expected to last to the appellate stage of a case. In evaluating Roe’s argument that the Texas anti-abortion law violated her right to privacy included within the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court balanced the encroachment on the right to privacy involved in denying access to an abortion against the government interest supported by enforcing anti-abortion laws. Roe had argued for relief based on an alleged violation of her right to “personal, marital, familial, and sexual privacy" afforded to her by the Bill of Rights. The Court clarified that, while the “Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy”, the kind of right to personal privacy claimed by Roe is implied by the Fourteenth Amendment and does include the woman’s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. The harm to the state in allowing a pregnancy to go forward would pale, the Court noted, in comparison to potential medical harms, psychological harms, or stigmas posed to an individual by an unwanted pregnancy. The Court did not go so far as to say that abortions should be allowed without restriction but, rather, defined a framework within which regulation of abortion would be appropriate. The Court stated that the right to choose to have an abortion is limited by state interests in health issues surrounding pregnancies. The Court’s decision reviewed the historical rationale behind anti-abortion laws, including the government interests regarding “protecting the potentiality of human life” and in “protecting the health of pregnant women”, noting that those interests are time-limited and are not “compelling” for the government until after the first trimester of a pregnancy when a live birth is almost certain.