Legally, and in typical business practices, what the photographer told you is completely true — she has no obligation to give you RAW files, unless the contract says otherwise.

Presumably, the photographer will sell you prints of her work. This is how she makes her living, after all. Kind of harsh to discover after it is too late, but if you wanted something else, you should have arranged it beforehand.

These days, many photographers will sell you high resolution digital copies, although RAW files are more rare. (See for example Copyright Was Released to All Images: Does this include all RAW photos? for a case where copyright license was given but not RAW files.) However, if the deal doesn't include the opportunity for the photographer to make money from prints, one of the following is certainly true: the price will be higher, the work not as good, or the photographer is paying the bills with some other job.

The issue of RAW vs high-quality JPEG is a separate one, but also important. RAW files are just that — unbaked data. You wouldn't go to a bakery and demand that you get the flour, sugar, and eggs with your cake. And, if you did, the baker might be justifiably concerned that you might take those, mix them up and throw them in the oven and then serve something that doesn't represent her brand — but with her name attached. You might say "but I'm the paying customer!", but, consider what you are actually paying for: the expertise and skill of the baker. Same with a photographer. If you wanted the ingredients and a recipe for printing your own photos, especially with all of the latitude RAW gives you, that's beyond the normal deal.

In any case, in the situation you are in, the photographer has all of the cards both legally and technically. And, although I sympathize with you, probably morally as well. Always read contracts and know what you are paying for.