And you can refer to Dobbs to understand the Supreme Court's view on why it isn't the case.

You asked why somebody would think that the right to privacy is applicable in this situation. There is ample material describing why they might think that, including a Supreme Court judgement. It's not a difficult position to understand, regardless of whether you believe that view or not.

The existence of other material, including a later judgement, supporting the view that this isn't the case does not invalidate other views.

But Roe v. Wade (and abortion being protected under a right to privacy) was changed

Right, but the argument for why one would consider it to be protected is clearly spelled out in the original court case – regardless of any subsequent ruling.