New research published in Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology suggests that state-level abortion policies may influence Americans’ sense of belonging and willingness to relocate. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which shifted abortion regulation to the states, people living in states expected to adopt policies contrary to their beliefs reported a lower sense of belonging and a greater desire to move to states aligned with their values.
The study was conducted to explore whether the changing legal landscape after the Dobbs decision could intensify “ideological migration,” where people relocate to places that better match their political and moral views. Prior work has shown that Americans often sort themselves geographically along political lines, but whether specific legal changes, such as abortion restrictions or protections, could accelerate this trend had not been well studied.
“I’ve been investigating political polarization and how people’s responses to contentious elections and issues vary based on where they live and who they interact with. After the Dobbs v. Jackson decision, I wanted to understand how such a major shift in abortion policy might influence Americans’ decisions to move to states that better align with their moral beliefs and what this could mean for the future of political and social division in the country,” said study author John C. Blanchar, an assistant professor and director of the Social and Political Psychology Lab at the University of Minnesota Duluth.
The researchers surveyed 743 American adults two weeks after the Dobbs decision. Participants were drawn from a larger longitudinal study on political behavior and completed an online questionnaire about their abortion attitudes, sense of belonging in their state, expectations about state abortion policies, and intentions to migrate. Participants included both pro-life and pro-choice advocates, with most living across 49 U.S. states.
Participants first indicated their stance on abortion and then assessed how closely they believed their abortion views matched those of others in their state. They also predicted how restrictive or permissive their state’s abortion laws would become. The study measured participants’ sense of belonging through questions about how welcomed and at home they felt in their state. Finally, participants reported whether they would like to move to another state and whether they were seriously considering relocation in light of the changing abortion laws.
The researchers used multilevel modeling to analyze the data, taking into account that individuals were clustered within states. This approach allowed the team to examine both individual differences and broader state-level patterns.
Results showed that people who expected their state’s abortion policies to conflict with their own beliefs reported feeling less at home. Pro-choice advocates living in states anticipated to pass restrictive abortion laws, and pro-life advocates in states expected to adopt more permissive laws, both reported lower feelings of belonging.
Participants were not just expressing general dissatisfaction. Those who reported lower belonging because of anticipated abortion policies were also more likely to say they were seriously considering moving to a state where abortion laws would align with their personal views. Mediation analyses indicated that a diminished sense of belonging played a central role: ideological mismatch lowered belonging, which in turn fueled migration intentions.
“A key takeaway from our study is that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson may lead to increased domestic migration as individuals seek to live in states whose abortion policies align with their personal beliefs,” Blanchar told PsyPost. “People who feel their state’s policies are in conflict with their views on abortion are more likely to consider moving, which could contribute to greater political division and regional homogeneity over time. This trend highlights how deeply moralized issues like abortion can drive migration patterns, potentially reshaping the nation’s political landscape.”
Both individual-level perceptions and broader state-level trends mattered. At the individual level, people who felt personally out of step with the ideological climate of their state reported stronger intentions to migrate. At the state level, living in a generally pro-life or pro-choice state that conflicted with one’s beliefs heightened these feelings.
The study found these patterns across both sides of the abortion debate, and among both men and women. Whether someone identified as pro-life or pro-choice, the greater the perceived mismatch between personal values and anticipated state policy, the stronger the motivation to consider moving.
“We were initially surprised that pro-life advocates and men were just as motivated to consider relocating as pro-choice advocates and women,” Blanchar said. “That symmetry suggests it’s not just about access to abortion, but about wanting to live in a place that reflects one’s moral values—a pattern we’ve seen repeated in follow-up studies.”
There were some limitations to the study. Participants were not evenly distributed across states, and smaller states had fewer respondents. Although the researchers accounted for this in their analyses, future studies with larger and more balanced samples could provide greater precision. The study also relied on self-reported attitudes and intentions rather than observing actual migration patterns over time.
Although the study provides strong evidence for the link between abortion policies and migration intentions, it does not show that people actually moved. Expressed desires do not always translate into behavior, as real-world decisions to relocate are often influenced by factors like family ties, job opportunities, and financial considerations.
“Not everyone who’s dissatisfied with their state’s abortion laws will move, at least not right away,” Blanchar explained. “But over time, these patterns are likely to shape where people are willing to live, potentially influencing broader migration trends and reinforcing political divides.”
The study, “Is Abortion Policy the Next Catalyst for Ideological Migration? Dobbs v. Jackson and Migration Intentions Across the United States,” was authored by John C. Blanchar and Catherine J. Norris.
