Your case of interest (I think, I have not read the opinion) has to do with the TORT of invasion of privacy which is rooted in the common law. It is the right of one private person to sue another private person for invading one’s privacy.

The Roe v. Wade decision is founded on a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT not to have the government restrict private conduct.

Although they both use the word “privacy” they are two entirely different legal concepts. One is a cause of action among private individuals, the other a limit on what a government is able to do. One is founded in the common law, the other on constitutional concepts.

I am much more of a legal pragmatist than a scholar, but I will venture to say that these two decisions MIGHT follow from the same ancient common law principles that came over on the boat that landed at Jamestown. Perhaps they share a common ancestor, in the same sense that apples and oranges do. It is unlikely that one could draw a line from your case to Roe v. Wade in any coherent way without going way back in time before coming forward again. That’s more of a strong hunch than a rock solid conclusion.

With respect to the more broad question, which is more interesting and answerable, the best place to start would be to Shepardize the appellate opinion and start reading.