Privacy is a much broader subject than the specific issue of abortion, and in the context of this discussion, "the supreme court did that" doesn't really make sense, because historically the courts have been the primary source for establishing "newly"-recognized privacy rights. To drive the point home, this is exactly what Roe did in the first place.

Moreover, the Supreme Court has been the only governmental institution apparently willing to push back on one of the biggest culprits of privacy violation: the Third Party Doctrine.

The (ridiculous) TPD holds that anyone who voluntarily gives up their information to a third party (your ISP, your bank, your phone company, etc.) has no reasonable expectation of privacy in that information (which is why the government can get away with intruding on such information without a warrant).

Finally, in 2018 in Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court recognized that this is an untenable assumption when the analogous government intrusion in a less-tech-advanced world would clearly be a breach of privacy, and in a world where basic, everyday functions require the giving up of personal information to third parties. The Court held that warrants are needed for gathering historical cell phone tracking information, remarking that cell phones are almost a “feature of human anatomy”, and that “when the Government tracks the location of a cell phone it achieves near perfect surveillance, as if it had attached an ankle monitor to the phone’s user”.