Sure that may be the case but there is still some argument applied to both decisions. What's the main difference between one vs. the other that makes decision to get a medical procedure not legal but decision to not wear a mask legal?
Similar issues exist about masks too. (e.g. concerns of immunocompromised people)
There is no "right not to mask". A right not to mask would mean that such a law would not be enforceable. But the court found no such right. It simply found that the executive was interpreting a statute incorrectly.
Specifically, the Biden administration believed that a piece of legislation gave them the authority to mandate masks in certain workplaces. The court disagreed except for in the case of medical facilities. In particular, the court said nothing about what would happen if, hypothetically, Congress were to pass a law clarifying that OSHA does indeed have the authority to mandate masking.
The SCOTUS decisions regarding masking/vaccines were not cases of constitutional law or individual rights. Rather, SCOTUS was simply ruling on the meaning of a statute passed by the legislature and enforced by the executive. Individual constitutional rights were not in play.
By contrast, Roe v Wade establishes a constitutional right to abortion. What this means is that even if Congress or a state passed a law outlawing abortion, that law would not be enforceable unless SCOTUS overturned Roe.
I don't think there is a single justice on the court who believes that the constitution provides a right not to mask. The court is hopelessly political, and on hot-button issues it's best to think about the court reasoning backward from decisions rather than forward for law, but "a constitutional right not to mask" is not how the conservative justices currently on the court would ever go about justifying striking down a mask policy.
Comparing the mask/vaccine decisions to the Roe decision doesn't make much sense.