This is a research prototype. The data and analyses are preliminary and not yet validated — we'd welcome your .
A study conducted over 14 weeks across 467 locations in the United States found that Google Search results for abortion services were less likely to return abortion clinics in poorer and rural areas. The research highlights how search engine algorithms can create disparities in health access by failing to consistently direct users to legitimate abortion providers, instead sometimes surfacing crisis pregnancy centers. The study noted that performance improved following a major algorithm update, suggesting the issue was tied to the search system's ranking logic.
Google Search reportedly returned fewer abortion clinics for searches from poorer and rural areas, particularly ones with Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) laws.
Domain classification, causal taxonomy, severity scores, and national security assessments were LLM-classified and may contain errors.
Accuracy and effectiveness of AI decisions and actions are dependent on group membership, where decisions in AI system design and biased training data lead to unequal outcomes, reduced benefits, increased effort, and alienation of users.
Google Search performed worse (returned fewer legitimate abortion clinics) for users in poorer and rural areas, representing unequal performance across demographic and geographic groups.
AI system
Due to a decision or action made by an AI system
Unintentional
Due to an unexpected outcome from pursuing a goal
Post-deployment
Occurring after the AI model has been trained and deployed
The search ranking algorithm (AI) unintentionally returned fewer legitimate abortion clinic results for poorer and rural areas post-deployment.
Added categories peak at 2: Minor (Psychological Harm, Inferred)
An academic study revealed algorithmic bias in Google Search, where queries in poorer and rural US areas returned fewer legitimate abortion clinics compared to wealthier areas. While highlighting significant issues of healthcare access equity and algorithmic fairness, the incident does not pose a direct threat to US national security.
Google Search acts as an Assistant by providing information and suggestions (search results) to users to help them make decisions, requiring human oversight and selection.
Minimal or No Risk: Google Search is a general-purpose search engine and does not fall under the high-risk categories like medical diagnostics or critical infrastructure, thus posing minimal direct regulatory risk under the EU AI Act.
The primary goal of Google Search is to allow users to search for and retrieve web content based on queries, which fits Content Search.
The report is based on a structured academic study with clear empirical data, methodology, and statistical findings regarding Google Search results across multiple locations and weeks. There is little ambiguity about the findings, though the real-world human impact must be inferred.
The disparities could be interpreted as reflecting underlying real-world disparities in clinic availability rather than purely algorithmic bias, though the study controls for location and notes improvement after an algorithm update.
Technology
Algorithmic Bias
Search algorithm favored closer CPCs over actual abortion clinics.
Legacy Search Algorithm
Performance was poorer before a major search algorithm update.
Data Inputs
Geographic Disparities
Fewer AC results in data for poorer and rural search areas.
Process and Methods
Inadequate Result Filtering
System failed to filter out misleading CPCs for abortion service queries.
Regulatory Environment
TRAP Laws Influence
Targeted regulation of abortion providers limited available AC data.
AI system involved
Identified by automated extraction; can differ from the alleged developers above.
