From my understanding, (and if I am mistaken, then just take this as a
hypothetical) it is not clear to everyone whether the constitution
allows states to limit the right to abortions. So when Roe V. Wade was
originally ruled on, the judges had to use their best logic and
assumptions to determine what the ruling should be.
If there was a way for supreme court judges to resolve ambiguities, by
forcing congress to vote on whether states can limit the right to
abortions, then after however the law was voted, the judges could just
rule in accordance to that new law. This obviously does not make the
ruling set in stone. Just like any law, the law could later be
repealed, or a new law in the future can modify that previous law.
It is worth clarifying, in addition to the helpful answers, that the premise of this question as applied to the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade did not present the question that the question believes that it did.
Everyone who participated in drafting all parts of the U.S. Constitution that were pertinent to Roe v. Wade were long dead in 1973 when it was decided.
Questions of constitutional interpretation are fundamentally different from questions of statutory interpretation, in which the source of the law is an institution, like Congress or Parliament or a City Council that continues to operate and function as a living institution that is around to be asked.
In contrast, the whole point of a constitution is to tell legislative bodies what they can and cannot do from a perspective outside those legislative institutions, based upon a legal text adopted in a process that is closed and over with. New amendments can be drafted to a U.S. Constitution by a very challenging process, but those amendments aren't legislation and aren't the product of an ongoing living and continuing political institution.
So, in cases of constitutional interpretation, it wouldn't make sense to ask for a legislative interpretation, even if courts were authorized to certify these kinds of questions to legislatures.
There are a small class of cases where courts can direct legislatures to pass legislation. For example, such directions are frequently the end result of litigation alleging that state constitutional minimum standards for providing public education on an equitable basis are not met by an existing school funding system. Or, a state legislature could be directed to "try again" to prepare congressional or state legislative redistricting maps following a census.
But, in all of the cases where this can be done in U.S. law, it does not involve clarification or interpretation of legislation. Instead, it involves situations where the legislature has failed to carry out its constitutional duties correctly, but in which there is no one right answer for how it should do so.
In U.S. law, federal courts can, however, present a "certified question" to a state supreme court (or the equivalent court by another name) regarding an interpretation of state law where there are no controlling state supreme court precedents, often, when there is a possible split of authority in lower courts on an issue. Certified questions can pertain to state constitutions, state statutes, state law regulations, or state case law, or more than one of these things. This is because federal courts generally are not supposed to answer open questions of first impression about state law. In cases where a federal court asks a state supreme court about state common law precedent interpretation, this is quite similar to asking the "legislative body" that is the source of the law what it means.
Likewise, while federal courts cannot issue advisory opinions, it isn't uncommon for a state courts to be granted the authority in a state constitution to answer inquiries from a state legislature regarding the meaning of an existing or proposed law. But, it is always the court that answer than, not the legislative body.