Golden Gate University Law Review


Sabina Zenkich


This article studies and defines abortion law in Ireland after X and in the United States after Casey. It addresses how these decisions affect Irish and American women's rights, respectively, to secure an abortion. It also scrutinizes the justices' opinions and criticizes the reasoning for their holdings. This article argues that both Courts changed their nations' straightforward abortion laws to reach decisions that the courts felt would be more palatable to their respective political constituencies and satisfy their own subjective beliefs. On the one hand, the Irish court declined to abide by the traditionally conservative position denying abortion rights as codified in the Irish Constitution. Rather, motivated by humanitarian concerns for the individual defendant in this situation, the Court pursued a more liberal interpretation of Irish abortion law. The Irish Court, therefore, broadened the law so more women would be eligible to procure abortions. On the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court vitiated the liberal standards of Roe v. Wade. Although, it re-articulated Roe's basic holding, the Court left women vulnerable to state intervention which will impinge their abortion rights.