States with restrictive abortion policies saw noticeably slower growth in female medical school applicants after 2022, a new study finds. Researchers say the trend could reshape the physician workforce for years to come.
Where a state stands on abortion access may now influence where aspiring female physicians choose to apply to medical school — and potentially, where they will eventually practice medicine. A new study published in the open-access journal PLOS Global Public Health found that restrictive reproductive health policies are linked to a measurable slowdown in the growth of female medical school applicants in those states following the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
The research, led by Amrit Kirpalani of Western University in Canada, analyzed data from the Association of American Medical Colleges spanning 44 U.S. states and Washington, D.C., between 2018 and 2025. States were divided into two groups based on their abortion policies: those that expanded or protected abortion access, and those classified as hostile to or not protective of it.
What the Data Shows
Across the country, the share of female medical school applicants climbed by 5.3 percentage points over the study period. Before the Dobbs decision, states in both policy categories followed similar upward trajectories. But after 2022, states with restrictive abortion laws fell behind — recording growth in female applicants that was roughly 0.58 percentage points slower per year than their more protective counterparts. That difference translates to approximately 71 fewer female applicants per year than researchers would have expected.
Notably, the study found no significant difference in the proportion of women who actually enrolled in medical school nationally after 2022. That finding suggests women are not abandoning their medical careers — they may simply be steering their applications toward states where reproductive health protections are in place.
“In the years since Roe v. Wade was overturned, women have continued to apply to medical school in growing numbers – but that growth has slowed noticeably in states with abortion restrictions. Trends like this tend to compound over time, and could meaningfully reshape who practices medicine, and where,” the authors note.
Why It Matters for Students and the Healthcare System
For pre-med students currently navigating the application process, this research adds a new dimension to an already complex decision. Choosing where to apply to medical school is rarely just about academics or rankings — factors like cost of living, proximity to family, and personal safety all play a role. This study suggests that state-level reproductive policy is increasingly part of that calculus for women.
The implications extend well beyond individual application decisions.
“These findings suggest that restrictive reproductive policies may be subtly reshaping women’s professional pathways even at the earliest stages of the physician workforce pipeline,” the authors write.
While the year-over-year differences may look small in isolation, compounding effects over time could significantly alter the gender composition of the physician workforce in states that have enacted abortion bans or restrictions.
That demographic shift carries particular weight in regions already grappling with doctor shortages.
As the researchers write, “sustained disparities in application growth could have long-term implications for gender equity and healthcare access, particularly in states already facing physician shortages.” Fewer applicants today means fewer practicing doctors a decade from now — and in rural or underserved communities, that gap could become acute.
Limitations and Context
The study is observational in design, meaning it identifies an association rather than proving direct causation. Other factors — such as differences in state funding for medical education, cost of living, or broader demographic shifts — could also contribute to the application trends observed. Additionally, six states were excluded from the analysis due to incomplete data.
Still, the timing and consistency of the pattern across states suggests the policy environment is playing a meaningful role. The findings arrive as universities, medical schools and policymakers continue to debate the downstream effects of post-Dobbs reproductive legislation on healthcare infrastructure and workforce development.
For students considering medicine as a career, particularly women weighing where they want to build their professional lives, this research underscores that state policy is not just a political abstraction — it may directly shape the environment in which they train, work and provide care.
Source: PLOS