John W. Johnson's did a pretty good job with Griswold v. Connecticut: Birth Control and the Constitutional Right of Privacy. The chapter on the development of the right of privacy before Griswold, especially in the 18th Century, was particularly interesting. Johnson did a less impressive job in his quick review of events after Griswold, including not even mentioning an important case involving abortion advertising. Also, again, Justice Douglas' earlier speeches on the right of privacy were not mentioned, nor his more extensive discussion on the overall concept in his concurrence in Doe v. Bolton (the companion to Roe v. Wade). The latter, the former perhaps a bit more obscure, is an oversight worth noting.
As I referenced in the past, Douglas gave three lectures -- available in book form -- on The Right of the People. One chapter is expressly on "The Right of Privacy," which contains an early reference of the "penumbra" concept all too many assume was somehow first referenced in Griswold (or at best in his dissent in Poe v. Ullman). The essay is excerpted in a collection of his writings that is more easily obtained, Nature's Justice. Douglas' Doe concurrence is also interesting, especially in comparison to his thin majority opinion in Griswold, and even (in connective tissue on the constitutional right to privacy) the fairly thin majority in Roe.
And, thus ends our privacy week -- as a final note, in a post I will not link, I responded a bit heatedly to someone who also passionately dissented to a discussion on the right "to choose." This area is known for its passion, obviously, but the useful thing to do is to try to stop some misunderstandings. If possible. The post was troubling to me because it seemed to miss the fact that many (I would say most) who choose abortion -- rightly or wrongly -- recognize an important moral decision (is this not "choice?") is being made. Disagree with their decision all you like -- but ignore this, and you cross another line.
Talking about crossing lines, in an oral argument in front of the Second Circuit of Appeals that was aired on C-SPAN, I think one of the judges did so. He clearly does not like the partial birth abortion (so it's called -- disagree with the label as you wish) law, which is fine -- one can dispute it on constitutional grounds. But, the judge seemed to make it personal when he basically disgustedly asked if the deputy defending the law was serious that if she was thinking about getting an abortion, she would not trust her doctor in the specific example. No need to get personal like that. Leave that to us non-professionals.