Roe v. Wade

Road to the Supreme Court

Norma McCorvey—known in court by the pseudonym Jane Roe—was an itinerant circus worker who was unable to care for her first child. When she became pregnant again, she attempted to seek an abortion at an underground facility in Dallas but found it to be an unsatisfactory option. Unsure of what to do, she consulted with an attorney known for handling adoptions, who referred her to another lawyer, Linda Coffee. In December 1969, McCorvey agreed to work with Coffee and her colleague, Sarah Weddington, to challenge the Texas statute.

Weddington and Coffee filed suit against the state of Texas, represented by Dallas County attorney Henry Wade, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. A three-judge panel heard the case in June 1970; its final decision upheld the enforcement of the statute. The attorneys appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Roe v. Wade, along with Doe v. Bolton, was accepted for review.

The American Civil Liberties Union was deeply invested in litigating Doe, and much of their expertise and resources were used in preparing attorney Margie Pitts Hames for oral argument. However, the two young Texas attorneys responsible for Roe also were in need of legal guidance. Although they had passion for the abortion issue, neither attorney had prepared a brief for the Supreme Court, let alone argued a case before this body. Recognizing the problem that could result from this inexperience, veteran abortion attorney Roy Lucas attempted to take over oral arguments in the case, even though he had also never appeared before the court.

Although Lucas might have brought more experience to the courtroom than Weddington, interest groups with a stake in the abortion issue, including the National Organization for Women and the National Abortion Rights Action League (now simply NARAL), believed that a woman's voice was necessary in oral arguments. Thus, the American Sociological Association opened its personal library, containing volumes of research on abortion litigation and history, to Weddington. In addition, the association coordinated an amicus curiae effort in which groups’ briefs complemented each other and presented a variety of facets of the same argument.

The organizational efforts and interest group involvement of the pro-choice lobby strongly contrast with the efforts of the pro-life lobby. This lobby did little to promote the participation of any pro-life interest groups, or even the governments of the 44 other states with laws restricting abortion procedures. The pro-life Nixon administration also chose not to file an amicus curiae brief.

...