Both in its definition and consequences:

Roe declared the moment good cause becomes necessary (i.e. when a fetus is a person) impossible to identify, and therefore abortion legal, in the first trimester.

Doe went MUCH further in practically providing a blank check "good cause" that may be cashed any time before delivery, whether it takes a persons life or not.

That is a vast difference directly addressing "good cause" for taking a persons life, despite both rulings affirming need of such cause. That is why concurrently issuing (and so inseparably linking) radically different rulings baffles and appalls me. Half the complaints against Roe are not even IN Roe: They are in Doe, but Doe cannot be renounced without simultaneously renouncing Roe. The SCOTUS packaged them in an attempt to permanently settle abortion law (yet, ironically, made that impossible.) For all the disdain our abortion debate draws from "more liberal" countries, Does standard is FAR more permissive than most of theirs.

Again I compare ultra-left Norway: There is no contention over late term abortion, because abortion is illegal after week 12 unless pregnancy poses serious risk of life or limb to the mother and/or fetus. Meanwhile, much of the US screams at each other over whether "no fault abortion" should be legal till week 24 or "just" week 20.

Anyway, the rulings were referenced to demonstrate pretty much everyone—even the SCOTUS majority in the decision the pro-life movement hates most—agrees "you do not take life without a good cause." However, "good cause" is a largely subjective standard, so its definitions and defenders exist in nearly equal numbers.