Abstract

Canadian and American abortion policy took suddenly divergent paths after their respective Supreme Court decisions on the constitutionality of abortion; Roe v. Wade and Morgentaler v. the Queen. The question guiding this research is therefore why, with similar interest groups and policy legacies, has abortion policy diverged in Canada and the United States since Morgentaler and Roe? The thesis seeks to uncover the institutional access and veto points in order to explain these recently divergent abortion policies. This thesis uses historical institutionalism to seek explanations for this policy divergence. This thesis uses the comparative method to flesh out institutional similarities and differences that account for divergent abortion policy development in Canada and the United States since the 1970s. The comparative method used here involves the detailed analysis of Canadian and American abortion policy over time and the institutions influencing its development. The dependent variable is therefore abortion policy, while the independent variables are the institutional structures of the two states. The thesis concludes that because of the policy legacy created through Roe, and the permeability of the Republican Party by anti-abortion forces, the American abortion debate centers on judicial nominations and fierce Supreme Court battles. Conversely, the Canadian abortion debate continues along the same path, that of deference to the medical profession, as it did prior to Morgentaler. These institutional access and veto points therefore explain the divergent policy paths taken by the United States and Canada after Roe and Morgentaler