Differences between Roe and Wade
Contents
Roe (Petitioner) vs. Wade (Respondent)[edit]
The legal dispute in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), originated from a challenge to Texas criminal statutes that prohibited abortions except those performed to save the life of the mother. The litigation involved two primary parties: the petitioner, Norma McCorvey (using the legal pseudonym Jane Roe), and the respondent, Henry Wade, who served as the District Attorney of Dallas County. The arguments presented by each side focused on the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the extent of state authority over reproductive health.[1]
Comparison of legal positions[edit]
| Category | Roe (Petitioner) | Wade (Respondent) |
|---|---|---|
| Legal role | Plaintiff/Petitioner | Defendant/Respondent |
| Primary argument | Right to privacy under the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments. | State's interest in protecting potential life and public health. |
| Interpretation of "Person" | Arguing that the fetus is not a "person" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. | Arguing that the fetus is a "person" entitled to constitutional protection. |
| Objective | To strike down Texas statutes as unconstitutionally vague and restrictive. | To maintain state sovereignty in regulating medical and moral conduct. |
| Standing | Claimed injury based on the inability to obtain a safe, legal medical procedure. | Represented the state's duty to enforce existing criminal law. |
| Constitutional focus | 14th Amendment Due Process Clause (Liberty). | 10th Amendment (State Powers) and 14th Amendment (Life). |
Arguments of the petitioner (Roe)[edit]
Attorneys Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee argued that the right to an abortion was a fundamental liberty. Their position relied on the "right to privacy" previously established in cases like Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). The petitioner maintained that the decision to continue or terminate a pregnancy falls within the zone of privacy that the government cannot infringe upon without a compelling reason. Roe's team also contended that the Texas law was unconstitutionally vague because it did not clearly define what constituted a "life-saving" procedure, leaving doctors at risk of prosecution for standard medical care.[2]
Arguments of the respondent (Wade)[edit]
Henry Wade’s legal defense concentrated on the state’s obligation to protect what he termed "prenatal life." The respondent argued that life begins at conception and that the state has a "compelling interest" in protecting this life at all stages of development. Wade asserted that the Fourteenth Amendment's use of the word "person" included the unborn, which would grant the fetus a right to life that superseded the mother's right to privacy. Furthermore, the respondent argued that abortion was a matter for state legislatures to decide under their police powers rather than a matter for federal courts.[3]
Supreme Court resolution[edit]
The Court, in a 7–2 decision, rejected Wade’s argument that a fetus is a "person" under the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Harry Blackmun’s opinion found that while the state has an interest in protecting potential life and maternal health, these interests vary in weight during the course of a pregnancy. This led to the creation of the trimester framework, which attempted to balance the individual's privacy rights against the state's interests. The ruling remained the governing standard for abortion law in the United States until it was modified by Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992 and eventually overturned by Dobbs v. Jackson in 2022.[4]
