Prior to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision that overturned federal protections for abortion access, public perceptions about abortion legality and accessibility fluctuated, while attitudes toward abortion remained consistently supportive. Our study objective was to assess if and how perceptions and attitudes on the legality, accessibility, safety, acceptability, and availability of abortion changed from prior to post-Dobbs in more restrictive abortion policy states (Arizona and Wisconsin) compared with a less restrictive abortion policy state (New Jersey). We used both longitudinal and cross-sectional data from the population-based Surveys of Women (SoW) conducted from 2019 to 2023 in these three states to examine the impact of Dobbs on abortion perceptions and attitudes using quasi-experimental difference-in-difference models. We found a significant negative impact of the Dobbs decision on perceptions of abortion legality and of ease in getting an abortion for those living in more restrictive states, compared with those living in New Jersey. We also found decreases in negative attitudes regarding abortion acceptability and increases in supporting abortion availability from prior to post-Dobbs across both more and less restrictive state policy settings. Our findings highlight that people living in more restrictive states accurately perceived the Dobbs decision affected abortion legality and accessibility; simultaneously, more supportive attitudes toward abortion across both more and less restrictive state settings highlight the mismatch between ongoing state-level efforts aimed at restricting abortion and attitudes among state reproductive-aged populations. This study adds to the growing evidence base highlighting the myriad ways the Dobbs decision has impacted people’s lives and reproductive outlooks.
Assessing the Impact of Dobbs on Abortion Perceptions and Attitudes in More Restrictive Versus Less Restrictive State Policy Environments: Evidence from Arizona, Wisconsin, and New Jersey
