How did Sandra Day O’Connor’s concurring opinion differ from the Lawrence v. Texas majority opinion?

In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), Justice Sandra Day O’Connor concurred with the majority’s decision to strike down the Texas law, but her legal reasoning differed significantly from the majority opinion authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy.1

The primary differences were:

• Constitutional Basis: The majority opinion held that the Texas statute violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, asserting that the liberty protected by the Constitution encompasses the right of consenting adults to engage in private, intimate conduct. In contrast, O’Connor argued the case should have been decided based on the equal protection clause, focusing on the discriminatory manner in which the law was enforced against same-sex couples.1
• Precedent: The majority opinion explicitly overruled the court’s 1986 decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, declaring it incorrect. O’Connor did not join this portion of the opinion; she maintained that states could potentially outlaw certain intimate acts, provided such bans were applied on a nondiscriminatory basis.1