There are two aspects of the Roe issue.
First, either you find the horrors inflicted on women, who sought abortions - for even such situations as where they'd been raped, or they already had kids and health issues and didn't see how they could care for another - required the states to at least allow women the same access to abortion they had in 1787, OR reformers from the late 19th and early 20th century did not overstep limits on State powers in outlawing virtually all abortions. The answer to that question simply varies from person to person, and there's no way to "prove" one belief is better.
The SECOND issue is simply law. The five R2L Justices, who were specifically confirmed on just this question. They will hold that the BoR does not establish any right to privacy that prevents the States from telling women they cannot have abortions in ANY SITUATION. The problem with that is that a right to abortion, or even the pill or IUD, could be based on equal protection, and RBG believed. Only women can get pregnant. Men can have all the sex they want, with wives or hookers, and never get preggers. You and I, and all other avg intelligence thinking people, KNOW the 5 R2L justices find that unacceptable. Not on legal grounds, but on their own personal beliefs. So this bullshit about "oh its not in the const" is simply bs to reach a result.
And frankly it is bs. Does the State have the right to tell me not to buy condoms? NO. Does the State have the right to tell me not to have sex with someone not my wife? NO We all know this.