New study shows impact Dobbs decision had on public perceptions of abortion, supreme court

Study conducted on 5,500 subjects before and after leak, decision

A new study shows the impact the Dobbs decision had on the perception of abortion and the Supreme Court. More people supported abortion access after it as a result. 

“Effects of a US Supreme Court ruling to restrict abortion rights” was published in Nature Human Behavior, and the authors included Chelsey S. Clark, Elizabeth Levy Paluck, Sean J. Westwood, Maya Sen, Neil Malhotra, and Stephen Jessee. They conducted nearly 5,500 interviews before the leak, after it and then again after the official opinion was released. 

“Together, these findings contribute to our understanding of Supreme Court influence: that its direct effect is highly circumscribed, particularly in an era where the Court does not reflect average Americans’ views, and that its indirect effects are probably refracted through salient and strong reactions broadcast through the media,” the authors wrote.

Democrats' views of the Supreme Court soured significantly, while Republicans maintained their faith largely. The researchers contrasted the Dobbs decision to more popular ones like the Obergefell v. Hodges decision that legalized gay marriage. Generally, the latter opinion shifted public views to support gay marriage as well as the court. 

In contrast to positivity theory, or the claim that belief in the Court’s legitimacy is largely resistant to adverse rulings, this study shows that the Court’s legitimacy is not bulletproof and that major decisions have the potential to reduce diffuse support for the Court,” the authors said. 

Interestingly, the authors said that social media commentary had a bigger impact on its interviewees than traditional media. Roughly 38 percent of people learned about the Dobbs decision that way, and how it was conveyed to them generally gave them an unfavorable view of the justices’ decision. 

“While people still may be influenced by the Court for matters of understanding constitutionality and the specifics of the case on which the Court is deciding, they may be using social media to gauge where the public stands on an issue, particularly when social media provide abundant evidence that the Court’s ruling runs counter to majority public opinion,” the authors wrote.