410 U.S. 113 (1973)

70-18

Privacy & Personal Autonomy

Argued on December 13, 1971 Reargued on October 11, 1972 Decided on January 22, 1973

Sarah Weddington argued the cause for the appellants (Dec. 13, 1971) Jay Floyd argued the cause for the appellee (Dec. 13, 1971) Sarah Weddington argued the cause for the appellants (Oct. 11, 1972) Robert C. Flowers argued the cause for the appellee (Oct. 11, 1972)

         Roe, a Texas resident, sought to terminate her pregancy 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?

        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. [The Court's majority opinion received sharp criticism from all quarters on the ground that it was not a constitutional decision. In a 1993 interview, the author -- Justice Harry Blackmun -- sought to convince the public, if not his critics, that he was on firm constitutional ground.]