A Critical Analysis of the Supreme Court’s Role in the United States Government through the Lens of its Abortion Jurisprudence

Abstract

Abortion has a complicated history in the United States, characterized by shifts in its ‘moral acceptability’ and inconsistency in relevant public policy. However, it was not until the Roe v. Wade decision that abortion entered the political mainstream. In the fallout of that decision, political parties staked their claims on opposing sides of the abortion debate to attract certain groups of voter demographics. Now, as polarization increases across the country, critics have suggested ways to change how the Supreme Court is structured in order to reclaim its status as a pillar of neutrality and shield it from political divisiveness. To better understand the causes of and remedies for the politicization of the Court, I will use the lens of abortion to evaluate arguments for originalism and non-originalism in Constitutional interpretation and the shifting definitions of legal words over time. The history of abortion and abortion jurisprudence on the Supreme Court, from Roe v. Wade to Dobbs v. Jackson, prompts us to ask certain questions that will guide the progression of this thesis: (1) what is the role of the Supreme Court in our government? (2) how should the Court interpret the Constitution? and, (3) with a polarized federal government, should the structure of the Supreme Court be changed? In this thesis, I evaluate different suggestions for reshaping the Court and ultimately come to the conclusion that the Court is an entity designed to be democratic, which, in practice, has been rendered anti-democratic by the influences of external, polarizing forces. After weighing the relative costs and benefits––practically and philosophically––of various proposed reforms, I conclude that term limits on the justices’ tenure would prove the most valuable and least compromising change to make the Court a more democratic institution.