The gay marriage ruling (”super precedent”) was pretty simple and clear - sexual orientation is under the 14th amendment.
If I remember right, Roe was not simple. (I’m not a lawyer but re-read it a few months ago) They talked about 1st, 2nd, 3rd trimesters and viability and left open the possibility of late term restrictions except in case of the life of the mother. No decisions since have closed the door on late term restrictions - only on the specific laws that have been written to overturn Roe or add restrictions.
Democrats want to claim that ALL abortions fall into the Roe decision on early abortions (it’s a settled “super precedent”). I don’t know why Republicans don’t talk about the uncertainties and potential for restrictions in Roe after viability. My guess is that they want an absolute decision (overturn all of Roe) as much as the Democrats want absolute decision (all abortions legal).
A different decision from the same day as Roe, Doe v. Bolton, is what actually says that pretty much any doctor can decide an abortion is appropriate at any time in pregnancy for any reason they can dream up (e.g. “the financial responsibilities of a child could cause the women mental pain and suffering”). That’s the one that needs to be changed for late term abortions. But it’s pretty vague so hardly a “super precedent” from my layman’s point of view.
Constitutional protection of the woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy derives from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It declares that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."