PRAXIS.

Four years ago, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade–the case that federally protected the right for one to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability (the point in which a fetus can survive outside of the womb)–with Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (Coen-Sanchez et al., 2022). Currently, whether or not an individual can access abortion is determined by individual states. However, according to major medical groups such as the National Institute of Health, abortion is defined as essential healthcare (Fay et al., 2022). Abortion is known as standard medical procedure because sometimes it is necessary to treat complex pregnancy conditions which overall, protects the patient’s wellbeing. As of 2014, almost 1 in 5 pregnancies ended in abortion (Tobón et al., 2026). This demonstrates that the overturning serves not simply as a direct attack on bodily autonomy, but an evident threat to safety and health equity. Subsequent to the ruling, 13 states with ‘trigger laws’ (bans that are specifically enacted in order to immediately prohibit the right to an abortion) were implemented (Kaplan, 2022). Punishments up to life imprisonment were enacted onto those who performed this type of procedure (Felix et al., 2025). Additionally as of this year, abortion access has been banned at all (or nearly all) stages of pregnancy within 13 states. Several states (such as Georgia) have banned abortion access at the six week mark–a time in which most individuals are unaware that they are even pregnant (Liberation, 2025). The exceptions to receiving an abortion are incredibly narrow as well. 12 states have no fatal fetal anomaly exceptions. Nine states have no rape or incest exception. Five states have no health exception (KKF, 2026).

The law is often understood as a mechanism for creating equality. By establishing various rights and protections, the law formally states that all individuals are equal, and each person is provided with the same opportunities to participate in society. However, as demonstrated through the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the relationship between law and inequality has grown exponentially more complicated. Just as the implementation of a legal right does not necessarily mean that everyone is equally able to exercise that right, Dobbs v. Jackson highlights that the removal of a legal right does not impact everyone in the same way. For nearly 50 years, Roe v. Wade protected the constitutional right to an abortion. Once this right was returned to the states, the legal landscape surrounding reproductive healthcare completely shifted. Of course, the consequences of this change are not experienced equally by all Americans. By examining the overturning of Roe through the concepts of Marxism, legal violence, and legal consciousness, it is evident that the law has the power to perpetuate and deepen inequalities by determining which rights individuals can possess and how they can exercise them.

John R. Sutton utilizes the perspectives of Karl Marx to illustrate that society is ultimately shaped by its economy–that the ‘economic base’ influences the political and legal ‘superstructure’. Within a capitalist society, individuals are divided between groups that share various levels of economic power. In Marx’s case, he separates people between the bourgeoisie (those that set the hours and wages of others’) and the proletariat (the everyday workers). The proletariats complete labor, as they do not own factories. Thus, the bourgeoisie determine the power in society. They shape the superstructure, and do so in a way so that laws align with their own interests. If one views the world through the lens of Marx’s ideologies, society is divided between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’. Because those with greater economic powers possess the ability to influence the structures that actively govern society (such as legislation), it can be determined that the law and the economy are intertwined, each one having the ability to shape the other. According to Marx, this reflects that the concept of rights creates this ‘illusion of equality’. Even though the law formally recognizes all individuals as equal, citizens are forced into unequal social and economic statuses that determine their ability to navigate a changing legal environment. Some individuals will have greater access to economic resources and institutions given their geographic circumstances (in this case, which particular state they reside in). Even though everyone is presented as equal, not everyone experiences consequences the same way. For instance, those in California maintain their reproductive freedom because abortion is legal until fetal viability, and even later if the pregnant person’s life/health is at risk. However, 13 other states in the U.S. (such as Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Texas, and Oklahoma) enforce total or near-total abortion bans at all stages of pregnancy. The individuals residing in these states must undergo pregnancy (even if they would rather choose not to). Their only other options are to travel out of state to access a safe and legal abortion (which may not be a viable option for those who do not have the financial means to do so) or perform the abortion themselves (which is dangerous and life-threatening). This reflects that even though the overturning of Roe v. Wade applies to everyone, it is ultimately the individual's social/economic positions that establish what legal changes truly mean in the real world.

Additionally, the concept of legal violence further highlights how the law can perpetuate inequality through its distribution of rights and resources. Cecilia Menjivar and Leisy J. Abrego in Legal Violence: Immigration Law and the Lives of Central American Immigrants, highlighted that the law can actively function as a mechanism of violence because it determines one’s access to goods, benefits, and rights. Legal violence is the concept that describes how laws, policies, and institutional practices inflict system and measurable harm to particular groups of people. These consequences then become normalized as ordinary functions of society. Even though Menjívar and Abrego initially demonstrated legal violence through the ways immigration law restricts the extent to how immigrants can be integrated in society (which therefore, produces distinct inequalities that trickle not simply into one’s life, but generations thereafter), the concept can be applied to the repercussions following Dobbs v. Jackson. In both circumstances, the law creates vastly different circumstances for different people. By no longer considering abortion a constitutional right, it is legislation that determines who faces institutional barriers regarding access to reproductive healthcare. When these differences are normalized as an everyday part of society, legal inequalities will be embedded into ordinary life. The disheartening thing is, most individuals will cease to realize it.

Another way in which the overturning of Roe v. Wade is connected to inequality is through the concept of legal consciousness. Legal consciousness is how one’s feelings about themselves or knowledge about the law shapes the way that they utilize the law to solve problems. According to Menjivar and Abrego, an example of this can be immigrants’ fear of the law (which can stem from stigma regarding their legal identity) making it more difficult to mobilize legislation and generate legal claims. For instance, one may not ask college counselors for assistance because doing so will disclose their legal status. Ultimately, this reflects that the way the law is internalized shapes the reproduction of inequality because most individuals do not encounter legal systems objectively–it is shaped by their previous experiences with the law and their understanding of not simply what rights they possess, but rather whether those rights can actually be exercised in practice.

The overturning of Roe v. Wade can emphasize how changes in the law can directly impact one’s legal consciousness. For instance, for those who grew up during the period prior to Dobbs v. Jackson, abortion was considered to be a constitutionally protected right. However, the overturning of Roe v. Wade challenged this understanding immediately, establishing that the existence of a constitutional right is subject to change, and is fully dependent on how courts interpret the Constitution. This accentuates that the law shapes not only an individual’s physical and economic circumstances, but also their comprehension of what they should expect from the legal system. If citizens understand their rights as stable protections that are guaranteed by legislation, then a huge major reversal of one can alter their perception of the relationship between themselves and the state. It forces many to view that the law is unstable, political, and enormously dependent on one’s geographical location. In this way, individuals realize that constitutional rights can disappear in an instant–that laws and protections, which used to be viewed as permanent, are incredibly fragile.

It is evident that by analyzing the overturning of Roe v. Wade through the lenses of Marxism, legal violence, and legal consciousness, the law can perpetuate inequalities rather than assist in eliminating them. The law actively shapes which rights individuals can harness and in reality, whether or not a citizen can utilize those rights is structured by their material circumstances. This illuminates that legal changes do not generate uniform social outcomes but rather how the law can deepen inequalities when rights and resources are distributed disproportionately.

Sources: 

Coen-Sanchez, Karine et al. 2022. “Repercussions of Overturning Roe v. Wade for Women across Systems and Beyond Borders - Reproductive Health.” SpringerLink. Retrieved September 7, 2026 (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12978-022-01490-y).

Fay, K.E. et al. (2022). Abortion as essential health care and the critical role your practice can play in protecting abortion access, Obstetrics and gynecology. Available at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9575566/ (Accessed: 07 September 2026).

Tobon, Amalia Tobon. et al. (2026). The end of Roe v. Wade: Implications for women’s mental health and care, Frontiers. Available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1087045/full?ref=okraj.cz (Accessed: 07 September 2026).

Kaplan, L. (2022) The overturn of Roe v. Wade: Reproductive health in the... : The nurse practitioner. Available at: https://journals.lww.com/tnpj/Fulltext/2022/10000/The_overturn_of_Roe_v__Wade__Reproductive_health.2.aspx (Accessed: 08 September 2026).

Felix, M. et al. (2025) Criminal penalties for physicians in state abortion bans, KFF. Available at: https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/criminal-penalties-for-physicians-in-state-abortion-bans/ (Accessed: 07 September 2026).

Liberation, F.C. for R. (2025) FAQ: Georgia’s 6-week abortion ban: Feminist Center for Reproductive Liberation Atlanta, GA, Feminist Center for Reproductive Liberation - Abortion Services. Available at: https://feministcenter.org/faq-georgias-6-week-abortion-ban/ (Accessed: 07 September 2026).

Policy tracker: Exceptions to state abortion bans and early gestational limits (2026) KFF. Available at: https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/exceptions-in-state-abortion-bans-and-early-gestational-limits/ (Accessed: 07 September 2026).

Sutton, J. R. (2001). Law, class conflict, and the economy. In Law/society: Origins, interactions,

and change (pp. 61–98). Pine Forge Press.

Menjívar, Cecilia, and Leisy J. Abrego. 2012. “Legal Violence: Immigration Law and the

Lives of Central American Immigrants.” American Journal of Sociology 117(5): 1380–1421.