This article was originally published in May 2019. We have updated it in the context of recent reporting revealing a draft Supreme Court opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade and subsequent news coverage about the implications of Roe potentially being reversed.
- On May 2, 2022 Politico published a leaked draft Supreme Court majority opinion that would undo the Court’s decisions in Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which in 1992 upheld Roe. “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
- On May 3, the Supreme Court confirmed that the draft copy Politico obtained is authentic, adding that “it does not represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case.”
- The disclosure of the draft opinion has intensified social and traditional media attention on research linking legalized abortion crime rates — and an awareness of the need to discuss this work with nuance.
- Our original coverage was of a 2019 working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. That working paper has since been published in a peer-reviewed journal, and the update below reflects that.
Violent crime rates in the U.S. have fallen by nearly half since the early 1990s.
A 2020 paper in the American Law and Economics review, based on a working paper published in 2019, finds that legalized abortion following the Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 accounts for a large share of the crime drop over the past three decades.
The authors, Stanford University economist John Donohue and University of Chicago economist Steve Levitt, take new data and run nearly the same model they used in their influential — and much discussed — 2001 analysis published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, where they first suggested an association between abortion and crime.
“Legalized abortion is estimated to have reduced violent crime by 47% and property crime by 33% over this period, and thus can explain most of the observed crime decline,” Donohue and Levitt write.
The research has received renewed attention on social media since Politico on May 2 published a draft Supreme Court majority opinion that would overturn Roe.
The Roe decision effectively legalized abortion in the U.S., based on a 7-to-2 ruling that decided prohibiting abortion was unconstitutional because it infringed on a woman’s right to privacy. When referencing this research from Donohue and Levitt, it is important to note the reservations that some other economists offer below.
Donohue earlier this month stressed the need for nuance when CNN host Michael Smerconish earlier this month asked him, “More abortion. Less crime. That’s what your data suggests. True?”
Donohue responded: “That’s what the data suggest, but I would make the point that the critical factor is enabling women to choose the timing and selection of their family generation, and if they’re able to avoid unwanted pregnancies then all of the benefits that we saw that occurred because of abortion could be generated in that manner as well.”
In the same interview, Donohue pointed out, “I do think critics are always right to question a single study, but with the accumulation of data, and the greater capacity to evaluate over time, we now have a much more confident attitude that the original conclusions have been held up with an additional 20 years of data.”
Replicating the original
In the 2001 paper, Donohue and Levitt found that legalized abortion appeared to account for up to half of the drop in rates of violent crime and property crime to that point. They also predicted crime would fall an additional 20% over the next two decades. Levitt featured the research in the 2005 bestseller Freakonomics. The recent research also looks at violent crime and property crime.
“The thing that’s most interesting about the [research] is we simply repeated the regression process we went through 20 years ago with more data and the results got even stronger,” Donohue said in a May 2019 interview with The Journalist’s Resource, referring to the statistical method researchers often use to study relationships among variables. “That was a pretty interesting and powerful affirmation of the original hypothesis which was initially proposed.”
The headline finding works on the idea that, as the authors write, “unwanted children are at an elevated risk for less favorable life outcomes on multiple dimensions, including criminal involvement, and the legalization of abortion appears to have dramatically reduced the number of unwanted births.”
In the recent research, Donohue and Levitt use an almost identical analysis model as they did in 2001 but add abortion and crime data covering 1997 to 2014. The original analysis covered 1985 to 1997.
“By imposing the restriction of using the same model we used for a paper published in 2001, no one could claim that we were fiddling with the model to generate a particular result,” Donohue said.
Changes in crime within states
The finding that abortion legalization accounts for a large share of the decline in crime rates over the past three decades comes from several analyses.
The authors examine crime in states that legalized abortion before Roe; crime in states with high and low abortion rates after Roe; differences in crime patterns in states among people born before and after Roe; and differences in arrest rates within states among people born before and after Roe.
In the analysis on differences in crime patterns within states, they find a 10% to 20% reduction in crime associated with abortion, after controlling for several variables: prisoners and police per 1,000 residents, state personal income per capita, welfare assistance, unemployment rates, poverty rates and beer shipments.
“There has been this literature that talks about how abuse of alcohol is related particularly to violent crime,” Donohue said. “So [beer shipments are] a crude measure of alcohol abuse but the best we could correlate fairly well.”
As with their 2001 paper, not all economists are convinced by Donohue and Levitt’s more recent findings.
“Modern econometrics is focused on looking at really sharp changes in the variable driving your analysis,” said Theodore Joyce, an economics professor at Baruch College whose research on abortion has been published in several academic journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine and The Journal of Political Economy. “In other words, you look for really sharp breaks [changes] because you can isolate what changed and if anything moves when this moves. When you have smooth changes going on, smooth changes in employment, crime, demographics — abortion is part of that smooth change as you move into ‘80s, ‘90s and 2000s — you can’t identify abortion from the other things going on at that time.”
“To run these long panel regressions in which you are picking up the sweep of humanity and say you controlled for poverty — it moves very slowly and it’s mixed in with all these other trends, and I don’t think they can sort it out,” he said.
Donohue and Levitt replied to several of Joyce’s criticisms in a 2004 paper in the Journal of Human Resources.
Changes in crime across states
Another portion of the 2019 NBER analysis compares crime patterns across states that had low and high rates of abortion post-Roe. The authors report no relationship between abortion and crime before 1985, because there were fewer criminals affected by abortion being legal. In their analysis, a 20-year-old arrested for a property crime in 1985 is part of a cohort not affected by legal abortion because he or she was born in 1965 — before Roe. But a person born in 1975 would be part of a cohort that was affected.
As Donohue and Levitt explain in their paper: “There should be little or no impact of abortion on crime prior to 1985, because effective abortion rates are extremely low in 1985, even in high-abortion states.”
From 1985 to 1997, the researchers show a pattern where crime fell more in states with high rates of arrestees affected by legalized abortion, compared with states with low rates. Again, other economists are not convinced that state-to-state comparisons are appropriate.
“There are a lot of reasons New York crime might decline relative to Utah crime,” said Christopher Foote, a senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, in May 2019. “You can try to control what’s going on with unemployment and beer sales but at the end of the day you’re never really sure whether a state like New York is better prepared to prosper in the new economy than perhaps Oklahoma is, so maybe there’s different types of people moving into New York rather than Oklahoma. There’s all sorts of other factors you can’t account for when you’re doing this state-to-state comparison.”
Foote and another economist, Christopher Goetz, identified several technical flaws in Donohue and Levitt’s original analysis in a 2008 comment published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics. They noted then that cross-state comparisons came with too much data noise, meaning those comparisons include variables that can’t be controlled for. More precise findings could be drawn from within-state comparisons, they argued.
“The best way to determine if abortion has a causal effect on crime is to compare two people who are in a similar environment today, but who had differing probabilities of being wanted at birth,” they wrote.
Donohue and Levitt responded to Foote in 2008 in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, acknowledging and correcting mistakes in their 2001 analysis while reiterating their finding that “abortion legalization reduces crime.” They acknowledge in the working paper that they added more within-state analysis because of Foote’s 2008 comment.
Questions about the validity of comparing data across states are, “certainly appropriate to think about,” Donohue said. “One thing that’s so interesting is we are able to look not only across states at current levels but also within states.”
An ongoing scholarly discussion
Donohue and Levitt have been forthcoming with their data and methods over the years. Authors who have written papers critical of their past work often thank them for sharing their data or for providing comments.
One NBER paper from 2008 allows for the possibility that legal abortion had an impact on crime, but questions the magnitude that Donohue and Levitt found. A 2008 paper in Criminal Justice Policy Review cautions against using events that happen on an individual level — such as a person having never been born into a situation that might have led them to want or need to commit crime — to draw broad conclusions, such as that abortion legalization accounts for a huge drop in national crime rates.
Other research has found links between abortion and crime reduction, but for different reasons than Donohue and Levitt articulate. A 2007 paper in The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy looks at data from Canada and suggests that lower crime rates are not because of fewer “unwanted” births in a given year, but rather because fewer women were becoming teen moms.
Likewise, a 2015 study in Crime and Delinquency finds that, “if there is a statistically significant relationship between crime and abortion, it is due to varying concentrations of teenage abortions across states, not unwanted pregnancy.”
Still, Donohue and Levitt remain confident in their analyses: “It is rare for an economic theory to make predictions for 20 years into the future that are both bold and precise,” they conclude in the 2020 peer-reviewed version of the paper.
‘Not conceiving an unwanted baby’
Levitt, in a 2006 blog post, explained a subtle point that’s worth restating here. A critic had brought up that abortion rates among white women were declining and asked if Levitt would expect a rise in crime among white teenagers.
(Total abortion rates have declined substantially since the early 1980s.)
As Levitt explains in his blog post, the idea is that it is not access to abortion per se that leads to a decline in crime, but rather a decline in unwanted births. Here’s how he put it:
“It appears that the 1990s were a time when factors such as AIDS were leading people to, for instance, use condoms or abstain from sex altogether. Not conceiving an unwanted baby is equally effective in reducing unwantedness as having an abortion.”