Griswold (which articulated the right to marital privacy, which prevented laws banning contraception for married couples) was precedent for Roe, not vice versa.

Obergefell and Lawrence rested more strongly on Griswold directly (or through other non-Roe cases) than on any innovation from Roe, as I recall.

(Note that Thomas’ explicit attack on “all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents” strikes much more deeply, though, than just the Griswold line of privacy-related cases; the incorporation of the Bill of Rights as applicable against the States is substantive due process, and even the application of even the rational basis test requiring some connection to some legitimate public purpose for any legal distinction, are all part of the substantive due process precedent of the Court. I guess, if this Court wasn’t nakedly partisan and selective in its logic, this could be a hopeful sign for Dems on state gun control, since if there were a serious reconsideration of that precedent the incorporation of the second Amendment – the only Amendment with a purpose clause explicitly stating that it is for the benefit of the states – against the States would be on the weakest ground of any of it.)