Abstract
This article examines the rhetoric used in the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization to describe the decisions it overruled. We ask whether that rhetoric marked a stark departure in the way the Court has treated other cases in which precedent was overturned. To answer that question, we examine every overruling case in the history of the Court. We argue that, in some ways, Dobbs was continuous with developments in that history and, in other ways, marked a stark departure in the Court's rhetoric of overruling. We conclude by considering the implications of the rhetoric of overruling for legitimacy of the Supreme Court.