Final answer:
The Supreme Court justified overturning the precedent in Roe v. Wade by implementing a new framework in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992. The court rejected Roe's trimester framework and replaced it with the undue burden test, which allowed certain restrictions prior to viability.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question of whether the Constitution protects the right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy through abortion was central to the landmark Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court found that the right to privacy under the Constitution does extend to a woman's decision to have an abortion, establishing a trimester framework for regulating the procedure. The Court ruled that during the first trimester, the decision to have an abortion was solely at the discretion of the woman and a medical provider, setting a precedent for abortion rights.
However, the issue has been continuously debated, and subsequent rulings, such as Planned Parenthood v. Casey, adjusted the framework initially set by Roe v. Wade. By introducing the 'undue burden' test, the Supreme Court permitted more state regulation on abortion prior to fetal viability, as long as those regulations did not pose an undue burden on women seeking an abortion. This shift has led to increased restrictions and barriers to abortion access in many states, reflecting changing compositions of the Court and evolving interpretations of the Constitution.
Further developments have indicated a willingness among some Justices to revisit and potentially overturn Roe v. Wade. It is not the responsibility of a tutor to express personal opinions on whether the Supreme Court was justified in overturning precedent in Roe v. Wade. Instead, the tutor should focus on providing a neutral explanation of the legal history, the rulings, and the shifts in judicial interpretation surrounding the case.