The rulings on Roe v Wade and conceal carry are both constitutionally correct.
They aren't outlawing abortion -- they are leaving it up to the states. This is constitutionally correct according to the 10th amendment.
Meanwhile -- the right to bear arms shall not be infringed is specifically spelled out in the constitution. According to the supremacy clause states can't infringe upon that right.
Information question here - in Canada the Federal government has jurisdiction over criminal law and the Provincial governments have jurisdiction over civil law. So the Federal government was able to pass legislation that having or providing an abortion was not a criminal act. Then the provinces, being in charge of health care, each provide health care including abortions. But a province could/can not make an abortion illegal, because that is not their jurisdiction.
So who in the US has jurisdiction over criminal law? Because if it is the Feds, that means a state can't criminalize abortion. But if it is a mix then a State can criminalize something (i.e. abortion) that the Federal government has said is legal? That makes for a very messy legal system.
It is a mix, but because of the 10th amendment, states essentially have jurisdiction on criminal law. I feel like I read once that 90+ percent of criminal laws are state laws. The 10th amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So states make most of the civil
and criminal laws and then it gets litigated in state and federal courts up the chain to see if it has constitutional coverage under the amendments. Federal laws also get litigated by the SCOTUS.
That was one of the reasons the gun case was also a big deal yesterday. It actually expanded gun rights. Usually the second amendment covers guns, but in the opinion yesterday they also set precedent for the right to conceal carry under the 14th amendment.
Roe was covered under the 14th amendment as well.
ETA - this is frankly why women are also second class citizens under US law. Women are not granted equal protection in the constitution or amendments other than the right to vote. So any other freedoms that women currently have can theoretically be overturned by a supreme court case. And that wasn't really a concern until recently, because no court has actively removed rights from individuals until the last few years (There are probably some other examples, but to me, SCOTUS overturning part of the voting rights act a few years ago was the first major step in removing rights). Generally once rights are granted, they aren't taken away again. (also - someone correct me if I am wrong about this!!)