It wasn't a law - it was a supreme court ruling.
Supreme Court rulings ARE carry the full force of law when they're founded on the jurist's interpretation of unenumerated constitutional rights.
You're such an ignorant tool. Roe was never a law in the sense of something passed by Congress, Roe was the continuation of the Court's interpretation that the 14th Amendment contained the constitutional right for personal liberties - first established by Griswold, specifically for contraception rights; then Roe, for abortion rights; next Lawrence, for consensual sexual rights; and lastly Obergefell, for same sex marriage rights.
Many constitutional scholars also cite the 9th Amendment as being congruent and constitutionally supportive of unenumerated privacy rights along with the history of prior Court's challenges to and upholding of these same court decisions up until the Dobbs ruling.
The nonsensical opinion written by Alito, misstates United States history as it regards abortion rights and laws, and bases its decision to claim that prior Court's finding of privacy rights was inconsistent with the cherry-picked recitation of 19th Century societal norms cited, completely ignoring that when the Constitution was written there were no laws anywhere outlawing abortion because there was no state medical apparatus to even try to regulate individual women for their personal reproductive decisions.
Basically, this Court has delivered a wholly political decision that is not supported by the Constitution or this nation's own history as it regards a woman's bodily autonomy. And the kicker is that only because of modern medical technology and record keeping can any government conceivably attempt to enforce restrictions upon a woman's choice. Doing so in the 19th Century was physically impossible.
It's antithetical that a document that codifies numerous rights retained by citizens that restrains the reach of government - and openly states that there are OTHER such rights, not mentioned specifically within the texts, but yet are retained by the People - that the right of personal body autonomy wouldn't be one of those rights, especially when the 4th Amendment clearly states other rights of personal privacy from government and investigations by the state not grounded with probable cause.
So those of us opposing the Dobbs ruling have much more constitutional ground to stand on - based on the Bill of Rights and this nation's continued expansion of personal rights throughout time - than those who have to cite virtual distortions of ancient history in full ignorance that for 50 years citizens have held these rights and have built our society and current strictures around them. This is precisely why stare decisis used to be the firewall built to stop inventive reinterpretations from recalcitrant Court members that move liberty backwards, instead of forwards.