Abstract
Sociology of Law and Sociology of Gender instructors around the United States may hesitate to tackle the sociopolitical topic of abortion, but the documentary Reversing Roe allows students to listen to multiple sides of the arguments surrounding abortion while learning the social history of abortion politics. Given that there is such staunch “pro-life” versus “pro-choice” movement discourse, it is easier to discuss abortion as a sociopolitical issue that has always had “sides,” although who has embodied those teams varies over history.
The documentary starts with an interview with Dr. Colleen McNicholas, a gynecologist who performs abortions at the last remaining clinic in Missouri. The filmmakers include footage of anti-abortion activists and protest strategies outside of clinics along with interviews that demonstrate the fervor of anti-abortion advocates. The filmmakers interview mostly middle-age and elderly people in this film and include religious and nonreligious perspectives on multiple sides of the highly politicized abortion debate. While the documentary carries a more “pro-choice” tone, it is among the few sociopolitical works about abortion that accomplishes a decent nod to the multiple perspectives on the ethics of abortion among Americans.
The narrative flips between Dr. McNicholas in the present day to the sociohistorical evidence of how her practice has been impacted by 50 years of law and politics. Using graphics to demonstrate the Supreme Court’s votes, the filmmakers make it clear how the Court has determined and interpreted abortion law, despite or due to their own political affiliations. The film focuses on how the Supreme Court has interpreted abortion and does a thorough job in detailing how Roe v. Wade (1973) does not represent the reality of contemporary abortion law. The documentary simplifies the complex redefinition of Roe v. Wade in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), including the hopes that pro-life groups hung on the first female Supreme Court justice, Sandra Day O’Connor. The film covers abortion policy in the United States until 2017, including the controversial Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (2016) case that was prominent on social media, supported by Planned Parenthood and Texas Democrat Wendy Davis. Given recent discussions within the Supreme Court (Gerstein and Ward 2022), it is likely instructors will need to provide additional resources and expand on key decisions since 2017.
Although it might be important to highlight the feminist opposition to abortion in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in a course, Reversing Roe starts with the legal political regulation of abortion in the 1960s and 1970s. Footage and interviews with early feminist movement leaders highlight how and why abortion became a political and legal issue. Showing contradictory footage and statements from Republican lawmakers and presidents, the narrative demonstrates the politicization of abortion in the 1970s and 1980s that has led to such staunch divisions in society today. In attempts to earn the Catholic voter base, Ronald Reagan turned on his own laws and set up new anti-abortion infrastructure for the Republican Party. The film shows religious and pro-life fervor that developed as a social movement at the same time as the feminist movement was growing. The documentary does not put as much weight on the activities and opinions of Democrats at this time, which is something instructors might clarify and discuss with students. Geoffrey Stone’s (2017) Sex and the Constitution details the ways in which the Republican Party took up abortion with fervor, while Democrats lost the Catholic vote across three presidencies. Broadly, Democrats took a stronger position in favor of abortion in response to Republican opposition.
The modern examination criticizes the ignorance of science and medicine in lawmaking while showing the financial backing and lobbying efforts of pro-life groups. In particular, the issue of “partial-birth abortion,” a fear-mongering political invention of the 2000s that has no basis in science, is featured. Dr. McNicholas clearly indicates that the abortion cases that are debated and legislated is small compared to most abortion cases in the United States.
The filmmakers interview key legal figures, including Sarah Weddington, the attorney representing Jane Roe in the original 1973 case, and Kathryn Kolbert, former ACLU leader, along with activist leaders such as Gloria Steinem and Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood. Representatives from National Right to Life, Operation Rescue, and Texas Right to Vote are interviewed to represent anti-abortion perspectives. The film also includes sociolegal journalist and Linda Greenhouse, Pulitzer Prize winner for her analysis of the Supreme Court. Multiple doctors and religious figures are also included. Although the film includes a brief discussion of race and class when it comes to abortion, the film glaringly excludes adequate testimony and voices from women of color. This is something an instructor could address in the discussion about the film. For example, I pair the film with Solazzo’s (2019) article on race, poverty, and abortion law from Social Problems.
While the film does not depict an abortion procedure, there are images and topics that may be unsettling to students, including the discussion of “back alley” or “coat hanger” abortions. Women who died in attempted abortion is how Roe v. Wade was ultimately motivated and accepted to come before the Supreme Court. The film includes footage of some anti-abortion propaganda featuring fetal tissue and the nonscientific “partial-birth abortion” drawings presented to Congress. Propaganda and movement materials are shown from pro-life and pro-choice movement members.
This film is recommended for Sociology of Law and Sociology of Gender classes as well as classes focused on social movements. It is recommended for upper-level students and not for introductory courses as the content requires advanced critical thinking and legal analyses. I have used the film for several years in a class I created titled Law, Sexuality, and Society in the middle of the term. I provide students with a set of reflection questions prior to viewing and ensure a content advisory about abortion, mentions of sexual assault, and graphic images used by protestors. Reflection questions include the following: From where did I learn my notion of abortion, life, birth control, and so on? What is a person? What is personhood? What do I know about pregnancy and childbirth? When does human life begin? When does a woman become a mother in the law versus a woman? When did I first learn about the “pro-choice”/“pro-life” division in American society? Why is abortion so highly stigmatized?
Students should have a basic knowledge of pregnancy and reproduction along with how the U.S. Supreme Court functions prior to watching the film. Instructors might use the film with McCauley’s (2011) syllabus “Sexuality and Reproduction” or Keys’s (2010) “American Society: Social Problems and Collective Solutions.” Each of these syllabi could successfully include Reversing Roe. Readings from Mary Zieger’s (2020) Abortion and the Law in America and Geoffrey Stone’s (2017) Sex and the Constitution also pair well with the film’s historical and court analyses.
Teaching abortion law and policy may seem daunting, particularly because abortion has a reputation for being polarizing and political. It remains an important element of human sexuality and legal policy with a robust history that has been well documented in academic literature; teaching the sociological perspectives of abortion discourse and policy can be destigmatized through films such as Reversing Roe.