In Search of Determinants of Abortion Policy in a Post-Casey World

Abstract

Although abortion remains one of the most prevalent and controversial political and social issues in the United States, academic and policy research on the determinants of state abortion policies is surprisingly sparse, and most existing studies are cross-sectional. In our research, we utilize a new panel dataset on abortion policy covering the post-Casey years to explore these determinants. Our findings reveal that the Ranney Index, indicating the measure of Democrat control in state government, increases the likelihood of fewer abortion restrictions in the state, aligning with expectations and previous literature. Interestingly, liberal citizen ideology slightly decreases the odds of reducing abortion restrictions. Another surprising finding is that higher median household income and a greater share of the population that is college-educated are associated with restrictions to abortion services.

Keywords

interest groups ranney index ideology CLAR Index H70 K14 K36 Z12

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baetschmann

Staub

K. E.

Winkelmann

(2015). Consistent estimation of the fixed effects ordered logit model. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics in Society), 178(3), 685-703. https://doi.org/10.1111/rssa.12090. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/43965757

Bentele

K. G.

Sager

Aykanian

(2018). Rewinding Roe V. Wade: Understanding the accelerated adoption of state-level restrictive abortion legislation, 2008–2014. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 39(4), 490–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554477X.2018.1511123

Berkman

M. B.

O'Connor

R. E.

(1993). Do women legislators matter?:female legislators and state abortion policy. American Politics Quarterly, 21(1), 102–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x9302100107

Berry

W. D.

Ringquist

E. J.

Fording

R. C.

Hanson

R. L.

(1998). Measuring citizen and government ideology in the American States, 1960-93. American Journal of Political Science, 42(1), 327–348. https://doi.org/10.2307/2991759

Black

(1948). On the rationale of group decision-making. Journal of Political Economy, 56(1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1086/256633

Bose

Van Duyn

(2022). Time preferences as partisan politics: What do party manifestos show in twenty-two OECD countries? European Politics and Society, 23(2), 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/23745118.2020.1847571

Cannedy

Lee

(2022). Abortion attitudes in AMERICAN society: The role of sexism, working mothers, and state policies. Journal of Integrated Social Sciences, 12(1), 75–90.

Chamberlain

(1980). Analysis of covariance with qualitative data. The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 225–238. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297110

Cheng

Thostenson

(2024). Psychological traits and public attitudes towards abortion: The role of empathy, locus of control, and need for cognition. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02487-z

10.

Cohen

J. E.

Barrilleaux

(1993). Public opinion, interest groups and public policy making: Abortion policy in the American states. In Goggin

M. L.

(Ed.), Understanding the new politics of abortion. Sage Publications.

11.

Downs

(1957). An economic theory of democracy. Harper & Row.

12.

Holcombe

R. G.

(2003). Public finance and the median voter model. In Rowley

C. K.

Schneider

(Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Public Choice (vol. 2). Kluwer Academic Publisher.

13.

Hotelling

(1929). Stability in competition. The Economic Journal, 39(153), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.2307/2224214

14.

Klarner

(2013). Other scholars’ competitiveness measures. https://doi.org/10.hdl/1902.1/22519

15.

Macey

J. R.

(1989). The internal and external costs and benefits of stare decisis. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 65, 93–112.

16.

Macey

J. R.

(1998). Precedent. In Newman

(Ed.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law (vol. 3). Stockton Press.

17.

McNollgast . (1995). Politics and the courts: A positive theory of judicial doctrine and the rule of law. Southern California Law Review, 68, 1631–1683.

18.

Medoff

(2002). The determinants and impact of state abortion restrictions. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 61(2), 481-493. https://doi.org/10.1111/1536-7150.00169. https://www.jstor.org.proxyeast.uits.iu.edu/stable/3487791

19.

Medoff

M. H.

Dennis

(2011). TRAP abortion laws and partisan political party control of state government. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 70(4), 951–973. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1536-7150.2011.00794.x

20.

Meier

K. J.

McFarlane

D. R.

(1992). State policies on funding of abortions: A pooled time series analysis. Social Science Quarterly, 73(3), 690–698.

21.

Norrander

Wilcox

(1999). Public opinion and policymaking in the states: The case of post-roe abortion policy. Policy Studies Journal, 27(4), 707–722. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1999.tb01998.x

22.

O'Connor

R. E.

Berkman

M. B.

(1995). Religious determinants of state abortion policy. Social Science Quarterly, 76(2), 447–459. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/44072631

23.

Olson

(1965, 1971). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard University Press.

24.

Roh

Haider-Markel

D. P.

(2003). All politics is not local: National forces in state abortion initiatives. Social Science Quarterly, 84(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.t01-1-8401002

25.

Salehin

Pillai

V. K.

(2022). Social development and abortion policies in the United States: State-wise variations. International Consortium for Social Development, 44(3). https://doi.org/10.3998/sdi.3712

26.

Uslaner

E. M.

Weber

R. E.

(1979). Public support for pro-choice abortion policies in the nation and states: Changes and stability after the Roe and Doe decisions. Michigan Law Review, 77(7), 1772–1789.

27.

Winkelmann

(1998). Why are the unemployed So unhappy?evidence from panel data. Economica, 65(257), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0335.00111