Why Abortion Is a Matter of Justice, Not Morality — Framing access in terms of fairness and equality

When we think of abortion, many people immediately drift into the realm of morality: what’s right or wrong, “life” versus “choice”. But what if we shifted our lens and asked instead: Is abortion a matter of justice? If justice means fairness, equality, letting people have meaningful agency over their lives, then yes abortion access belongs in that conversation too. Imagine justice as a scale: if one side is locked while only certain people can use it, it’s not fair. That’s what happens when access to abortion is limited. In what follows I’ll explore why abortion is less about judging and more about fairness, equality, and real-world realities.

Understanding Justice vs. Morality in Abortion

When we talk about abortion through a moral lens, the questions often are: “What is the right thing to do?”, “Is it a sin or is it a choice?”, “Who decides what’s permissible?” These are valid questions but they can make the conversation feel static focused on individual virtue, guilt or belief. By contrast, when we frame abortion as a justice issue, the questions shift to: “Who has access?”, “Under what conditions?”, “Are people treated equally and fairly?” Justice asks: do the rules let people live full lives, or do they restrict certain people in certain circumstances?
In other words: morality asks should we?, justice asks how? and for whom?.
This shift matters because access (or denial) affects lives concretely, influencing education, work, health, and lifelong opportunity.

The fairness argument: who gets access and who doesn’t

Fairness means rules apply equally, or at least that people have equal opportunities given their starting point. But when it comes to abortion access, fairness is uneven. Some people live in places with good access, some do not; some have resources, others are blocked by cost, travel, stigma. For example, international human rights organisations say that denying access to abortion is a form of discrimination and puts people at risk of unsafe procedures.
So if we claim to live in a society that values fairness, we must ask: how fair is it when someone’s ability to choose whether or when to carry a pregnancy depends on zip code, income or race?

Equality and bodily autonomy

Equality isn’t only about equal treatment, but also about equal capability and respect. One central aspect is bodily autonomy: the right to make decisions about one’s own body. When certain groups are denied meaningful access to abortion, their bodily autonomy is compromised. Legal scholars have described how abortion restrictions often reflect sex- and class-based discrimination rather than neutral regulation.
So framing abortion as justice means recognising that people who can become pregnant deserve the same right to self-determination as others. If they don’t have it, the playing field isn’t level.

Economic impacts and access to abortion

Access to abortion doesn’t just affect a single decision, it can ripple through someone’s economic prospects. Studies show that when people are denied abortions, they are more likely to face economic hardship. For instance: being able to decide whether and when to parent can influence finishing school, participating in work, gaining economic independence.
So justice means considering these downstream effects. If denying access means more poverty, more limited choices, that’s a fairness issue, not just a moral one.

Race, class and access disparities

Justice demands we pay attention to who is most affected. Research shows that restrictions on abortion disproportionately impact people of colour, low-income individuals and those in underserved communities.
If the same barrier hits some groups harder than others, then it’s not only about preference—it’s about structural inequality. To ignore that is to ignore justice.

Geography, travel & unequal burdens

Imagine two people: one lives near a clinic, one has to travel hundreds of miles, or cross state lines, or figure out transportation, lodging, childcare. The second person faces a challenge the first may not. That’s unequal burden. Justice asks us: if two people need the same service, why does one face a heavier mountain to climb? Researchers highlight how access in rural or remote areas is significantly harder, making fairness harder to claim.  Thus, if abortion access is only accessible for some, we have a justice problem.

Abortion and human rights frameworks

Framing abortion purely as a moral debate sometimes misses the fact that international and human rights institutions treat it as a rights-issue: denial of access can be a violation of rights to health, equality, autonomy. 
When a rights framework is applied, we talk less about “should you?” and more about “should the state prevent you from having access?” That shifts the focus back to justice.

Societal participation: education, work and opportunity

Let’s use a metaphor: Life is like a race, and the start line matters. If some people start further back, or have obstacles in front, then the outcome will naturally differ. Access to abortion (when needed) can help ensure the start line is more equal, for example enabling someone to complete education, continue work, parent when ready rather than when forced. One organisation notes that after abortion became legal historically, women’s graduation rates, employment participation improved.  When access is blocked, you’re asking some people to start with a heavier backpack. From a justice perspective, that’s unfair.

Justice in policy: laws, barriers and remedies

When laws or policies impose undue burdens on accessing abortion—waiting periods, travel requirements, limited clinics—they create inequity. Some restrictions are based more on ideology or stigma than on medical necessity. For example, courts have found that laws which don’t help medically but raise cost or travel burdens violate rights.  From a justice framing we ask: are the laws built for fairness and equality, or do they impose heavier burdens on already disadvantaged people? Remedying those barriers, by expanding access, reducing cost, ensuring clinics, transportation, is part of a justice approach.

Metaphor: abortion access as a locked door in a house

Picture a large house representing society. Everyone should be able to move freely through its rooms education, work, health, family. But if a door inside that house (abortion access) is locked for some, then those people are confined to fewer rooms. The door might still be open for others, but fairness means the lock gets removed so everyone has the same access. This metaphor helps underline that the issue is not about judgment of the room, but about access to the room. And when access is unequal, we have a justice problem.

Addressing the “morality” frame: why justice adds clarity

Focusing only on morality can polarise the conversation, stall progress, and leave out the lived realities of people. When we add justice into the frame, we can ask: “Ok, regardless of one’s personal beliefs, how do we treat people fairly in our society?”
Justice does not require everyone to agree on whether abortion is morally acceptable in each individual case. Instead, it asks: “If it is legal and necessary for some, will our laws and structures ensure fair access and equal opportunity?”
In other words: even people who have moral reservations can still agree that fairness matters. Justice becomes a common ground.

Practical next-steps: what fairness in abortion access would look like

If we accept that abortion access is a justice issue, what might change?

• Remove arbitrary legal barriers: waiting periods, mandatory counselling, clinic closures that don’t serve a medical purpose.

• Ensure equitable funding and insurance coverage, so low-income people aren’t priced out.

• Improve geographical access: more clinics, support travel for remote regions, telemedicine options.

• Address intersections of race/class/gender: targeted support for historically marginalised communities.

• Public education and destigmatisation: so that the burden isn’t only logistical but also social.

• Policy oversight through the lens of equity: when new laws are proposed, assess their fairness, not just their morality.

Reframing abortion as a matter of justice rather than solely morality doesn’t ignore the moral questions, it simply adds another, powerful dimension. It asks us: Are our laws and systems fair? Are opportunities equal? Are people treated with dignity and given real choices? When we answer yes to those, we move closer to a society where access to abortion is not a privilege of the few but a guarantee for all. Because justice demands more than belief—it demands action, fairness, and equality.