Can Policies Affect Preferences? Evidence from random variation in abortion jurisprudence

Overview & Synopsis

Turning to the courts to vindicate rights has often led to resistance and subsequent acceptance. This paper investigates the effects of randomly assigned judges on abortion cases on subsequent legislative actions and shifts in public attitudes in the United States from 1971 to 2004. By examining comprehensive data from appellate and district abortion cases, our analysis reveals three primary findings. First, verdicts in abortion cases are significantly influenced by the judges' biographies. Second, precedents that oppose abortion tend to stimulate legislative actions aimed at restricting access to abortion services. Third, public opinion exhibits a temporary shift against legalized abortion following pro-abortion rulings, particularly in the context of elective abortions. These shifts suggest a pattern of initial resistance followed by gradual acceptance. In general terms, these results contribute towards identifying the origin of norms as a function of judicial decisions.