One of the reasons SCOTUS ruled in 1973 that a woman can pursue an abortion based on privacy issues:
This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or ... in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. — Roe, 410 U.S. at 153
Why would they change now? Is it a change in the leanings of the court?
OR
Is it related to vaccine mandates? Can I argue that I don't want to take the vaccine and use Roe v Wade as the legal basis?...unless the SCOTUS weakens this ruling.
Generally, the court has made the decision, then looked for reasoning to support it. In Roe v. Wade, they first decided to make abortion legal, then looked for a way to tie it to a constitutional right.
Big reason for the push for the Equal Rights Amendment was that everyone knew the reasoning in Roe v. Wade was stupid. The term "right to privacy" isn't in the Constitution. The term used in the 4th Amendment is "right to be secure in their persons and property against unreasonable search and seizure."
At no time did the 4th Amendment mean that something was legal because it went on behind closed doors.
There's a weirdness to the decision, because the liberal justices never saw a baby they didn't want to abort, but it's probably not about vaccines. If they decide to rule we have to take the vaccine, they'll rule that way and damn precedent.