Public Opinion on Overturning Roe v. Wade : Separate Spheres Ideology,Abortion Identity,and Message Framing in a Three-Wave Panel Study

Abstract

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (hereafter, Dobbs) overturning Roe v. Wade was a landmark decision. We focus on the influence of gender ideology, measured by separate spheres ideology (SSI), on public perceptions of this decision. In a three-wave survey-experiment panel study with a nationally diverse sample, participants reported their endorsement of SSI, gender system justification, abortion identity, and attitudes toward abortion. At Wave 2, participants were randomly assigned to one of two message-framing conditions that differed in the number of facts about Dobbs or a healthcare control. Wave 3 examined the persistence of experimental effects. Overall, SSI was the only consistent moderator of message-framing effects on all outcome measures, with persisting effects on support for restrictive abortion policies and endorsement of the gendered status quo. SSI’s predictive influence in electoral choice and nonelectoral but gendered policy contexts is discussed.

Keywords

separate spheres ideology abortion identity gender system justification message-framing longitudinal panel design

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

Reno

R. R.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.

Altshuler

A. L.

Storey

H. L. G.

Prager

S. W.

(2015). Exploring abortion attitudes of US adolescents and young adults using social media. Contraception, 91(3), 226–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2014.11.009

Bai

(2021). When racism and sexism benefit Black and female politicians: Politicians’ ideology moderates prejudice’s effect more than politicians’ demographic background. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(6), 1480–1520. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000314

Bauer

N. M.

Harman

Russell

E. B.

(2024). Do voters punish ambitious women? Tracking a gendered backlash toward the 2020 Democratic presidential contenders. Political Behavior, 46(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-022-09805-2

Begun

Walls

N. E.

(2015). Pedestal or gutter: Exploring ambivalent sexism’s relationship with abortion attitudes. Affilia, 30(2), 200–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109914555216

Blazina

(2022, July 15). Key facts about the abortion debate in America. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/07/15/key-facts-about-the-abortion-debate-in-america/

Burgess

Borgida

(1999). Who women are, who women should be: Descriptive and prescriptive gender stereotyping in sex discrimination. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5(3), 665–692. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.5.3.665

Clark

C. S.

Paluck

E. L.

Westwood

S. J.

Sen

Malhotra

Jessee

(2024). Effects of a US Supreme Court ruling to restrict abortion rights. Nature Human Behaviour, 8(1), 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01708-4

Connor

R. A.

Fiske

S. T.

(2018). Warmth and competence: A feminist look at power and negotiation. In Travis

C. B.

White

J. W.

Rutherford

Williams

W. S.

Cook

S. L.

Wyche

K. F.

(Eds.), APA handbook of the psychology of women: History, theory, and battlegrounds (pp. 321–342). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000059-016

10.

Crawford

B. L.

Jozkowski

K. N.

Turner

R. C.

W. J.

(2022). Examining the relationship between Roe v. Wade knowledge and sentiment across political party and abortion identity. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 19(3), 837–848. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-021-00597-4

11.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

12.

Eagly

A. H.

(1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Lawrence Erlbaum.

13.

Eagly

A. H.

Mladinic

(1994). Are people prejudiced against women? Some answers from research on attitudes, gender stereotypes, and judgments of competence. European Review of Social Psychology, 5(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779543000002

14.

Earl

McClelland

S. I.

(2026). Decision vacuums in the provision of abortion care: Implications for psychology and policy. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 13(1), 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/23727322251409122

15.

Enns

P. K.

Kellstedt

P. M.

(2008). Policy mood and political sophistication: Why everybody moves mood. British Journal of Political Science, 38(3), 433–454. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123408000227

16.

Gothreau

Arceneaux

Friesen

(2022). Hostile, benevolent, implicit: How different shades of sexism impact gendered policy attitudes. Frontiers in Political Science, 4, Article 817309. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2022.817309

17.

Guttmacher Institute. (2025, June 6). State bans on abortion throughout pregnancy. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-policies-abortion-bans

18.

Heilman

M. E.

(2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 657–674. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00234

19.

Heilman

M. E.

Wallen

A. S.

Fuchs

Tamkins

M. M.

(2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 416–427. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.416

20.

Jost

J. T.

Chaikalis-Petritsis

Abrams

Sidanius

van der Toorn

Bratt

(2012). Why men (and women) do and don’t rebel: Effects of system justification on willingness to protest. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(2), 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211422544

21.

Jost

J. T.

Kay

A. C.

(2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 498–509. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.498

22.

Jost

J. T.

Liviatan

van der Toorn

Ledgerwood

Mandisodza

Nosek

B. A.

(2011). System justification: How do we know it’s motivated? In R. Bobocel, Kay

A. C.

, et al. (Eds.), The psychology of justice and legitimacy (pp. 173–203). Psychology Press.

23.

Mazei

Hüffmeier

Freund

P. A.

Stuhlmacher

A. F.

Bilke

Hertel

(2015). A meta-analysis on gender differences in negotiation outcomes and their moderators. Psychological Bulletin, 141(1), 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038184

24.

Miller

A. L.

(2014). The separate spheres ideology: An improved empirical and litigation approach to family responsibilities discrimination. Minnesota Law Review, 99, 343–379. https://doi.org/10.24926/265535.1139

25.

Miller

A. L.

(2019). Expertise fails to attenuate gendered biases in judicial decision-making. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(2), 227–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617741181

26.

Miller

A. L.

Borgida

(2016). The separate spheres model of gendered inequality. PLoS One, 11(1), Article e0147315. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147315

27.

Miller

A. L.

Borgida

(2019). The temporal dimension of system justification: Gender ideology over the course of the 2016 election. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(7), 1057–1067. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218804547

28.

Miller

Carter

MacRae

Schulz

(2021). A comparative analysis of attitudes towards female and male breadwinners in Germany, Sweden, and the United States. Journal of Gender Studies, 30(3), 358–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2021.1872510

29.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/833/

30.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/

31.

Rudman

L. A.

Glick

(2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 743–762. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00239

32.

Schneider

M. C.

Bos

A. L.

(2019). The application of social role theory to the study of gender in politics. Advances in Political Psychology, 40(S1), 173–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12573

33.

Vitriol

J. A.

Lavine

H. G.

Borgida

Alva

D. P. M.

(2026). Support for a gendered status quo polarizes candidate evaluations: Evidence from multi-wave election panel studies. [Manuscript submitted for publication]. College of Business, Lehigh University.

34.

Walters

Borgida

(February 16–19, 2022). Separate spheres ideology in the 2020 U.S. presidential election: A 3-wave panel study [Poster presentation]. 2022 SPSP Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, United States.

35.

Watson

Clark

L. A.

Tellegen

(1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063

36.

Watson

Angelotta

(2022). The frequency of pregnancy recognition across the gestational spectrum and its consequences in the United States. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 54(2), 32–37. https://doi.org/10.1363/psrh.12192

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.30 MB