Abortion and women’s reproductive rights will continue to be central to several U.S. Supreme Court cases.

Justice Samuel Alito, who penned the majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization—the landmark decision that overturned Roe v. Wade—drew heavily on the original text of the United States Constitution, noting its silence on abortion rights. Alito and five other justices relied on the analytical framework from Washington v. Glucksberg to question whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s promise of “liberty” includes the right to abortion.

In a notable concurrence, Justice Clarence Thomas pressed further, contending, “We have a duty to correct the error established in those precedents.” His opinion aimed at several landmark Supreme Court decisions built on privacy rights: Griswold v. Connecticut (marital contraception), Lawrence v. Texas (private sexual conduct), and Obergefell v. Hodges (same-sex marriage).

While the majority in Obergefell notably rejected the narrow test used in Glucksberg in favor of a more expansive interpretation of liberty, the Dobbs ruling marks a radical return to historical tests and traditions—limiting fundamental rights to those recognized in 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.

Chief Justice John Roberts presented a middle-ground view by upholding Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban. However, his rationale did not establish a concrete constitutional basis for how such a standard might function. The dissenting opinions from Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan resounded with urgent questions: “Must a state law allow abortions when necessary to protect a woman’s life and health? How much risk to a woman’s life can a State force her to incur before the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of life kicks in? And short of death, how much illness or injury can the State require her to accept, consistent with the Amendment’s protection of liberty and equality?”

As the Republican platform edges toward a nationwide abortion ban, one proposed path is a “Personhood Amendment” that would grant embryos legal status as persons. While this would inevitably face challenges in the Supreme Court, the conservative majority appears poised to favor such measures if they align with a constitutional amendment.

Reflecting on Dobbs brings Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s critique of Roe itself to mind. For Ginsburg, the central question in Roe was not solely a matter of a woman’s right but instead of whether a physician could perform an abortion without interference. Ginsburg’s ideal initial abortion case was not Roe but Struck v. Secretary of Defense (1972).

In Struck, Ginsburg represented Captain Susan Struck, an Air Force officer given the choice to either terminate her pregnancy or leave the military. Captain Struck wanted to keep both—her pregnancy and her career. Here, Ginsburg’s advocacy centered on the choice to end a pregnancy and carry it forward. She argued on grounds of equal protection, privacy, and religious freedom, aiming to secure the government’s recognition of reproductive autonomy, encompassing all choices—not just abortion.

Yet today, Struck is overshadowed by Roe. In a post-Trump era, revisiting Struck may serve as a lens for understanding abortion rights not as a binary choice but as a nuanced issue rooted in individual agency. Captain Struck ultimately gave birth, with her daughter later adopted by a close friend, underscoring that, ultimately, it was her decision. Her case reminds us of a broader, perhaps less divisive, way to frame reproductive rights in the current era.