“Griswold versus Connecticut” was a landmark case happened in the year 1965. The appellant was Estelle Griswold. She was a director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Another appellant was Buxton – a professor of the Yale Medical School. He served as a Medical Director at the same League with Estelle Griswold. They tested a woman and advised her the best way of contraception for her. Commonly the service coasted money but for some couples it was free of charge. Griswold and Buxton were arrested and it made them to become the appellants.

This case touched on the law of Connecticut. The law prohibited the use of contraceptives. “By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy"(the quotation is from the official papers Text of Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).
Also according to the Supreme Court woman had a choice to have an abortion. This right of women was protected as an own private decision of a woman. A woman had a right to decide what she would do about her pregnancy between her and her doctor.

But the Griswold case was disputable. The line of cases was accused on numeral points by many conservatives. The accession was formulated as a “judicial activism”. This case also touched upon the use of “any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception.”
Let us look at this case form the side of the legal formalism (legal positivism; philosophy of law) and then we will explore the question from the legal formalism’s point of view (the opinion is stating that law is made by people and it means that law is not perfect).

Section 53-32 and 54-196 of the Genera Statutes of Connecticut (1958 rev) states: "Any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception shall be fined not less than fifty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days nor more than one year or be both fined and imprisoned."

Section 54-196 states that also doctors and assistances suppose to be punished.
From the side of legal formalism this law is preventing murdering. The Bible which is considered to be one of the first Laws of human’s states that abortion is the sin. People who were doing it were murders and they supposed to be killed also. Form this point of view we may conclude that Law pretending to be perfect. Any life is sacred and even woman have no right to kill her unborn baby.

Now what can we see for the side of legal realism? Parenthood is the private side of a person’s life. When a couple decides to give birth to a child future parents take into account many factors – where the child will be born; where the child will be study; which amount of money parent will spend on their baby daily, weekly, monthly. Law does not control these parts of a family’s private life. Law is not perfect and lawyers suppose to change it from time to time according to the modern life’s changes.

To-day life is different from the Bible times and even from the life at the beginning of the 20 century. Appellants helped couples to protect themselves and to plan their family according to their right of choice and privacy. The League helped women to save their health at the same time. According to the present day life and to legal realism we should state that the case “Griswold v. CONNECTICUT” was the important stair on the way of improving the imperfect Law.


“The Genera Statutes of Connecticut (1958 rev)”
“Text of Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)”. Retrieved from

GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT 9.8 of 10 on the basis of 2362 Review.