Landmark legislative events can shift public opinion. We conducted a longitudinal survey examining abortion attitudes before and after Dobbs v. Jackson which overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. Wave 1 (N=1,014) was conducted in June 2022, and Wave 2 (N=792) in October-November 2022. Using bivariate analyses, we assessed people's attitudes toward the Dobbs decision and potential changes in abortion attitudes over time, across different abortion identity sub-groups (e.g., pro-life, pro-choice). Results indicate that people were informed about (90%) and disagreed (55.7%) with the decision, and did not report or experience change in attitudes after the decision (68-73%). However, among those who did change, respondents were more inclined to endorse legal abortion after the decision (19-22%) than indicate abortion should not be legal (6-13%). Through analysing open-ended data, we found that participants more inclined to endorse legal abortion described the ruling as eroding personal rights, government intrusion, and threatening access to healthcare. Participants less inclined to endorse legal abortion indicated the ruling reinforced their belief in defending fetal rights. While not necessarily advocating outright illegality, such participants favoured stricter regulations. Notably, people who identified as 'both/neither/prefer not to answer' tended to disagree with the Dobbs decision and lean toward greater endorsement of legal abortion. Uncertainty regarding (dis)agreement with the Dobbs decision was also higher among people who identified as pro-life and 'both/neither/prefer not to answer' than among those who identified as pro-choice. These findings highlight important nuances that exist in abortion attitudes beyond the perceived dichotomy of the pro-life/pro-choice spectrum.
Keywords: Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization; abortion attitudes; abortion identity; attitudinal change; longitudinal survey; public opinion.
In 2022, the United States Supreme Court made a significant decision in the Dobbs v. Jackson case, overturning the earlier Roe v. Wade ruling. This change affected the legal status of abortion across the country. Our study looked at how people’s views on abortion changed before and after this decision. We conducted a survey over time, asking people about their opinions on the Dobbs v. Jackson decision and whether their attitudes toward abortion had changed. Using bivariate survey analysis, we found that most people in our study knew about the decision and disagreed with it. For the majority, their views on abortion did not change after the decision. Yet, for those whose views changed, more people endorsed legal abortion than opposed it post-Dobbs. Through analysing open-ended data, we found that people who reported more endorsement of legal abortion thought the decision took away individual rights and threatened healthcare access. Those who reported lower endorsement of legal abortion indicated the decision helped protect fetal rights. We found that people who did not fully identify as pro-life or pro-choice - those who identified as ‘both, neither, or prefer not to answer’ - were more likely to disagree with the Dobbs v. Jackson decision and endorse legal abortion. Additionally, those who identified as ‘both, neither, or prefer not to answer’ were more uncertain regarding whether they agreed with the decision. Our findings suggest that people’s views on abortion are more complex than pro-life or pro-choice labels suggest. Variation in views regarding abortion do not fit neatly into these two categories.