On 7 June 1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut, the United States Supreme Court decided, in a seven to two decision, that married couples have the right to purchase and use contraceptives without government restriction. The case considered the constitutionality of a Connecticut state statute from 1879 that prohibited the sale or use of any contraceptive device or medication. In 1961, Estelle Griswold, an executive director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, hereafter PPLC, and physician Charles Lee Buxton were convicted for selling contraceptives at a pregnancy clinic they opened in New Haven, Connecticut, in violation of state law. Griswold and Buxton challenged the constitutionality of the Connecticut law, claiming it violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution, which states that the state government cannot infringe upon rights of citizens without a fair process, such as a trial. Griswold v. Connecticut helped establish an inferred right to privacy within the amendments of the US constitution, granting the right of married couples to access contraceptives and setting the foundation for future cases involving contraception, abortion, anti-sodomy laws, and marriage.

On 22 March 1972, in Eisenstadt v. Baird, hereafter Eisenstadt, the United States Supreme Court determined, in a six to one decision, that unmarried individuals have the same right to access contraceptives as married couples. Eisenstadt involved William Baird, a reproductive rights advocate who intentionally broke Massachusetts law in 1967 by giving a speech about birth control at Boston University in Boston, Massachusetts, and giving an unmarried, nineteen-year-old woman contraceptives. Baird argued that laws against unmarried people accessing contraceptives unfairly discriminated against unmarried people and denied them reproductive autonomy. Massachusetts law, however, stated that contraceptives could only be distributed by medical professions to married people. The case followed a similar legal challenge from 1965, Griswold v. Connecticut, hereafter Griswold, which found that married individuals have the right to access contraceptives based on a constitutional right to privacy in the US. Eisenstadt reinforced the constitutional right to privacy and equalized the accessibility to contraceptives for married and single individuals.

In the 2013 legal case Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., hereafter AMP v. Myriad, the United States Supreme Court held in a unanimous decision that naturally occurring gene sequences are not eligible for patents. Researchers at the biotechnology company Myriad Genetics, hereafter Myriad, identified the precise location and sequence of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in 1994 and 1995, respectively. Certain mutations in those genes increase a person’s risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer. In 1998, Myriad was awarded multiple patents for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, including ones related to diagnostic testing. However, in 2009, the Association for Molecular Pathology, a non-profit organization that researchers and develops genetic testing, challenged seven of Myriad’s patents in a case that went to the Supreme Court in 2013. Had the Supreme Court upheld Myriad's patents claims, diagnostic screenings of BRCA1 and BRCA2 and further research into those genes would have been restricted to Myriad alone. AMP v. Myriad ensured that potentially life-saving medical advances related to identifying and sequencing genes, such as cancer screening and the detection of genetic diseases, would not be controlled by one company.

In 1974, the United States Supreme Court decided in a six-to-three decision in Geduldig v. Aiello (1974), hereafter Geduldig, that pregnancy-related disabilities could be excluded from state-run disability insurance programs and that discrimination based on pregnancy did not constitute sex discrimination. Carolyn Aiello, a woman denied disability benefits in California since her disability was pregnancy-related, and three other women facing similar discrimination, sued Dwight Geduldig, director of the California Department of Human Resources Development for violating the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Under California’s Unemployment Insurance Code at the time, conditions or disabilities that arise from or are related to a pregnancy were excluded from coverage. Aiello and the other women argued that by not insuring pregnancy-related disabilities, the state was unfairly discriminating against women. Geduldig detached pregnancy discrimination from the injustices uniquely faced by women by determining that civil rights law did not apply to pregnancy status, exacerbating the inequality women in the United States face in employment, education, and economic opportunity.