Women’s College Basketball Recruits Are Factoring in Abortion Laws, New Study Suggests
When we think about why student-athletes choose a particular college, the list of factors is fairly well known: playing time, winning culture, relationships with coaches, academics, proximity to home, and now, NIL compensation. But a recent study highlighted in Extra Points adds another factor into the conversation - state abortion laws.
For the first time, we have data suggesting that restrictive reproductive health laws may influence where elite female athletes choose to play. And while it’s too early to draw sweeping conclusions, the evidence offers a glimpse into how a changing legal landscape is affecting recruiting decisions, particularly in women’s basketball.
What the Study Found
Researchers from the University of South Carolina examined recruiting trends among ESPN Top 100 women’s basketball recruits from 2021 to 2024. This timeframe allowed the study to include data from both before and after the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision in June 2022, which overturned Roe v. Wade and enabled states to enact stricter abortion laws.
The findings are significant.
Schools in states with immediate post-Dobbs abortion bans saw a drop in elite talent commitments by over 6 percentage points.
In contrast, schools in states with no or partial abortion bans saw an increase of 9 percentage points.
This shift roughly equates to a loss of two top recruits over a four-year period for schools in ban states.
The study’s methodology controlled for key variables like recent team performance, head coach experience, team budgets, and access to in-state talent. That means the recruiting penalty wasn’t due to weaker programs - it was directly associated with state-level abortion legislation.
Who Is Affected?
The 13 states categorized as having “immediate, enforceable abortion bans” after the Dobbs ruling include:
Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
As of the 2024 recruiting cycle, only Texas and Louisville (Kentucky) appeared in ESPN’s Top 10 recruiting class rankings from among those states.
What This Means in Context
For women’s basketball programs, where classes are smaller and every top recruit can shift the competitive landscape, this kind of recruiting decline is more than just academic. Losing even one elite player every few years can mean the difference between national relevance and mid-tier performance.
This trend also highlights how elite female athletes may be applying the same decision-making filters that many students use: considering not just campus life or scholarship packages, but also state policies and long-term wellbeing.
While NIL and coaching still matter, the data suggests that healthcare access has entered the equation in a meaningful way.
Questions That Remain
The research raises a few compelling questions that are worth watching:
Will this trend persist as more states revise or clarify their abortion laws? For example, South Carolinav-vhome to the reigning national champion - has since passed a six-week abortion ban, though it wasn’t included in this data set.
How does NIL factor in? While the study used team budget as a rough proxy for NIL resources, it didn’t have access to detailed compensation data. Could players choose to play in a more restrictive state if the financial incentive is high enough?
Do these trends apply to other women’s sports? Right now, women’s basketball is the only sport with a deep enough recruiting data set to study meaningfully. That doesn’t mean the trend stops there.
What about men’s sports? The researchers noted they don’t expect the same effect in men’s basketball or football recruiting, but future studies may offer more insight.
What’s Next?
While this is only the beginning of understanding how political and healthcare policies intersect with college athletics, the implications are real. As Extra Points notes, every factor matters in recruiting - financial support, facilities, coach reputation, and now, apparently, laws about healthcare access.
And perhaps that’s not surprising. If the political climate affects how affordable or safe a place feels, why wouldn’t that influence where athletes choose to spend four critical years of their lives?
This study doesn’t close the book on the topic. Instead, it opens the door for deeper research and more nuanced understanding. But one thing is clear: elite female athletes are aware of what’s happening in state legislatures, and those laws may be speaking louder than some universities expect.
This article is based on reporting and analysis from Extra Points. We thank them for their continued efforts to dig into the structural and academic forces shaping college sports today.
