Title: Roe v. Wade | Oyez
Headings: 
Roe v. Wade
Media
Opinions
Appellant
Appellee
Location
Docket no.
Decided by
Citation
Argued
Reargued
Decided
Advocates
Facts of the case
Question
Conclusion
7–2 decision for Jane Roe
majority opinion by Harry A. Blackmun

Content: Roe v. Wade | Oyez
Roe v. Wade
Media
Oral Argument - December 13, 1971
Oral Reargument - October 11, 1972
Opinions
Syllabus
View Case
Appellant
Jane Roe
Appellee
Henry Wade
Location
US District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Docket no. 70-18
Decided by
Burger Court
Citation
410 US 113 (1973)
Argued
Dec 13, 1971
Reargued
Oct 11, 1972
Decided
Jan 22, 1973
Advocates
Sarah R. Weddington Argued the cause for the appellants
Jay Floyd Argued the cause for the appellee
Robert C. Flowers Re-argued the cause for the appellee
Facts of the case
In 1970, Jane Roe (a fictional name used in court documents to protect the plaintiff’s identity) filed a lawsuit against Henry Wade, the district attorney of Dallas County, Texas, where she resided, challenging a Texas law making abortion illegal except by a doctor’s orders to save a woman’s life. In her lawsuit, Roe alleged that the state laws were unconstitutionally vague and abridged her right of personal privacy, protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Question
Does the Constitution recognize a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion? Conclusion
Sort: by seniority
by ideology
<< decision 1 of 1 >>
7–2 decision for Jane Roe
majority opinion by Harry A. Blackmun
William O. Douglas
Douglas
Potter Stewart
Stewart
Thurgood Marshall
Marshall
William J. Brennan, Jr.
Brennan
Byron R. White
White
Warren E. Burger
Burger
Harry A. Blackmun
Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell, Jr.
Powell
William H. Rehnquist
Rehnquist
Inherent in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is a fundamental “right to privacy” that protects a pregnant woman’s choice whether to have an abortion. However, this right is balanced against the government’s interests in protecting women's health and protecting “the potentiality of human life.” The Texas law challenged in this case violated this right. Justice Harry Blackmun delivered the opinion for the 7-2 majority of the Court. First, the Court considered whether the case was moot, concluding that it was not.