Benevolent sexism takes a subjectively positive view of women in traditional gender roles, revering them as gentle, nurturing, and in need of protection by men. While studies show that people who express attitudes of benevolent sexism are willing to restrict women’s choices at an individual level, limited research exists on the impact of benevolent sexism in social policy. Using a single-case study method and benevolent sexism as a conceptual framework, I examined the introduction, passage, and legal defense of Texas House Bill 2 (TX HB2), a targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP) law. HB2 was passed by the Texas legislature in 2013 and ruled on by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2016 case of Whole Woman’s Health et al. v. Hellerstedt. Primary source legislative and court documents were analyzed to explore whether and how benevolent sexism ideologies were reflected in the introduction, passage, and legal defense of HB2 as a TRAP law. Four themes emerged: The State has the Right to Protect Women, Women Need Protection from “Bad Players,” Women are Emotional, and Women are Mothers/Vessels. Results confirm that language consistent with benevolent sexism was used in the context of policy making to justify restricting women’s access to pre-viability abortion.