ous venues, most of them engaged in the project of reversing all or part of the 1973 landmark decision. A wide range of advocacy organizations and individuals have weighed in with the culture on Roe v. Wade, and with the Supreme Court as well, in the form of amicus curiae briefs meant to influence the shaping of opinion and discourse in Court decisions on one hand, and the articulation of social and political values of American civil society as a whole on the other. Indeed, no less important to issue advocates than a court decision itself is the logic of belief, informed by a specific conception of human experience and civil society, that the court articulates in explaining its decision.
The persistence and high decibel level of the abortion debate is so pronounced in American culture that it is tempting to think that the Supreme Court is preoccupied with the issue. The fact that several hundred reproductive-rights bills are introduced in the U.S. Congress and the state legislatures every year demonstrates that abortion-rights law is far from settled. But two cases are of particular note. Roe v. Wade itself (1973) marked a wholesale transformation of previous reproductive-rights law. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) has been characterized as a watershed because it mobilized abortion-rights advocates to influence the court before the decision was announced and because it mobilized abortion-rights opponents to seek legislative action after the decision had been handed down (Tonn 265).
A variety of communication theory has been employed to interpret the rhetoric of abortion argumentation. The rhetoric of amicus curiae briefs relevant to specific decisions has not been examined in great detail as such, although the influence of "extra-legal materials" on shaping opinions of the Supreme Court has been acknowledged (Hagan 194-5). The amicus briefs presented to the Supreme Court on the subject of abortion offer a unique pla...