In the case of Roe et al. v. Norton, Commissioner of Welfare in 1974, a group of welfare recipients challenged Connecticut's Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program on constitutional grounds. The plaintiffs argued that the state's method for calculating benefits was arbitrary and violated their rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it resulted in lower payments for families with more children than those with fewer children. They also claimed that this system discouraged family unity by providing less aid per child as family size increased. The Supreme Court ruled against them, upholding Connecticut’s AFDC calculation method as constitutional and rejecting their claims about its effects on larger families or discouragement of family unity. The court found no evidence to support these allegations and concluded that states have broad discretion in administering welfare programs within federal guidelines.

In the dissenting opinion for Roe et al. v. Norton, Commissioner of Welfare, 1974, it was argued that the majority's decision to strike down a Connecticut welfare regulation as unconstitutional was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that the state had a legitimate interest in encouraging family unity and discouraging illegitimate births among welfare recipients. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment; they did not believe these rights were violated by this particular regulation because all individuals within each class (married or unmarried) were treated equally under it. Furthermore, they felt that striking down such regulations could potentially lead to an increase in public assistance costs without necessarily improving conditions for those on welfare.