Abstract
dc:description.abstract<p>Abortion has proven itself to be one of the most divisive issues in modern American politics (Ziegler 2009, 281). Although states did not begin to criminalize abortion until the mid-19<sup>th</sup> century, largely due to a group of doctors which argued that the procedure was damaging American society, abortion was largely practiced throughout much of American history (Stevenson 2019, 19). Since the Supreme Court of the United States has the power through judicial review to determine the constitutionality of state legislation, the abortion issue eventually made its way through the court system. Abortion has proven itself to be a complicated section of law for both courts and lawmakers. Initially, in the landmark <em>Roe v. Wade</em> (1973) case, the court gave women the right to seek an abortion prior to viability through an inferred constitutional right to privacy. This research aims to determine whether the <em>Roe</em> decision was sufficiently supported by the prior court precedent. Further, this research also aims to determine ideological shifts in the court bench, the consistency of Justices' constitutional interpretations in abortion cases, and which constitutional interpretation, if any, effectively protects women’s right to choose. Finally, this research aims to determine whether the <em>Dobbs</em> court was justified in overturning the <em>Roe</em> precedent under their cited reasoning and relevant case precedent.</p>
Degree
thesis:*- Name thesis:degree_name
- Master of Arts (MA)
- Level thesis:degree_level
- Masters Thesis
- Year dc:date.available
- 2024
Author and committee
dc:creator, dc:contributor.*- Author dc:creator
-
- Guerra, Evelyn Danielle
- Contributors dc:contributor
-
- Dr. Marek Steedman
- Dr. Kate Greene
- Dr. Iliyan Iliev
Subjects
dc:subject × 11Identifiers
dc:identifier.*- Repository record dc:identifier
- https://aquila.usm.edu/masters_theses/1032
- OAI identifier oai:identifier
- oai:aquila.usm.edu:masters_theses-2108