Two doctors sit sadly by a busy road, watching as an EMT places their patient’s body into a body bag. The patient died due to a fatal ectopic pregnancy that her OB-GYN refused to treat because of a new anti-abortion law in her state. One of the doctors, with tears in her eyes, answers the EMT’s questions about the death, then angrily exclaims that lawmakers should witness the consequences of their legislation. She questions how they can continue to practice medicine when women’s lives are at risk and their ability to help is restricted. While this situation could easily fit into a documentary about medical care after the Dobbs decision in the U.S., it’s actually from a recent episode of “Grey’s Anatomy,” known for its complex storytelling on abortion issues. However, it’s not the sole show addressing such themes. After five years of studying abortion depictions on screen, I’ve noticed that recent portrayals on TV differ drastically. Despite these impactful scenes, Hollywood still struggles to accurately represent who is most affected by abortion restrictions and the real state of abortion access in 2023.
In research conducted with sociologist Gretchen Sisson, we observed that most TV characters obtaining abortions rarely faced the legal, financial, or logistical obstacles that typically characterize abortion access challenges in the U.S., even before the Dobbs ruling that overturned the constitutional right to abortion. However, this is beginning to shift. A recent TV episode from the legal drama “Accused” shows a teenager seeking her teacher’s assistance to travel from Texas to New Mexico and pay $750 for a medication abortion. Other shows, like “P-Valley,” “FBI: Most Wanted,” and “Law & Order” include characters dealing with abortion bans that push them to seek care out of state. Unlike previous narratives, these plotlines highlight the compounded barriers many individuals face, like traveling long distances and covering costs for flights, accommodation, meals, and the abortion itself, along with logistical hurdles such as securing child care and arranging time off work.
Television is also exploring new discussions about abortion. In “The Connors,” a character considers abortion but hesitates to use a pregnancy tracking app, fearing governmental surveillance. “American Auto” uses dark humor to depict corporate leaders devising employee-friendly abortion policies, like sending fruit baskets and amusement park tickets for post-abortion relaxation. Medical dramas such as “The Good Doctor” and “New Amsterdam” feature fictional doctors talking about their past abortions and guiding patients through theirs. As many have limited information about abortion, popular media plays a crucial role in raising awareness of these important issues.
Yet, despite these fresh narratives, TV often perpetuates myths about who seeks abortion care. Historically, television misrepresents the demographics of abortion patients, tending to showcase stories of characters who are wealthier and whiter than real-life counterparts. In our analysis of 2022’s abortion storylines, Sisson and I found a majority of characters who had abortions were middle-class or wealthy white women. This pattern seems to continue into 2023, with nearly half of the characters seeking abortions being white and about a third being middle-class or affluent. In reality, white women represent only about one-third of U.S. abortion patients, with most living at or below the federal poverty line.
These misrepresentations obscure the realities of who typically seeks abortions and minimize abortion access as an issue intertwined with gender, race, and socioeconomic status. Inaccuracies extend to demographics, since 59% of abortion patients already have children yet only 18% of 2022’s and 9% of 2023’s portrayals involve characters with children, falsely separating abortion from parenting. While wealthy white women may face challenges obtaining an abortion, research highlights how the Dobbs decision exacerbates systemic racism’s negative impact on healthcare access for communities of color.
Moreover, TV inaccuracies also cover the type of abortions depicted. While medication abortions account for more than half of U.S. abortions, only four 2022 portrayals (less than 6%) included characters having a medication abortion, with only three such depictions (around 10%) so far in 2023. No storylines have shown characters safely obtaining an abortion with pills independently, an option that, though medically safe, carries legal risks in many states.
Even before the Dobbs decision, Sisson and I interviewed over three dozen Hollywood directors, producers, and writers involved in creating abortion storylines to gain insight into their experiences in bringing such narratives from script to screen. Our research revealed that content creators prioritized emotional accuracy in abortion depictions, often overlooking the political and logistical realities. Post-Dobbs media interviews show some showrunners regretting the omission of these significant contexts. Our research also highlighted barriers writers face, such as unsupportive showrunners and cautious executives. Despite Hollywood’s progressive image, networks worry about potential backlash from advertisers or audiences over airing abortion stories, fears that don’t align with the reality that most Americans support abortion access, know someone who has had an abortion, and have responded positively to abortion narratives since the 1960s.