An Inspector Calls essay question

The modern text essay is an argument about the whole work

In Paper 2, Section A, you answer one of two questions on your studied modern play or novel. For An Inspector Calls, there is no printed extract: the question asks you to draw on your knowledge of the whole play. The examination is closed book, so you do not have a copy of the text with you.

Allow approximately 45 minutes to plan, write and check this answer. This is a useful time allocation, not a separately timed section. One workable split is 5 minutes choosing and planning, 35 minutes writing and 5 minutes checking. Practise this allocation so that planning helps your writing without taking over the available time.

The essay carries 30 marks, with another 4 marks for AO4, covering accurate spelling and punctuation and effective vocabulary and sentence structures.

An essay is more than a collection of remembered quotations. It offers an answer to the question, then uses selected evidence and analysis to make that answer convincing. Writing about the whole play means considering relevant moments across its development; it does not mean mentioning every character or summarising every scene.

Reading the question and its two prompts

Here is AQA’s June 2023 question on women:

JB Priestley: An Inspector Calls

Question 01

How does Priestley present what life is like for women in An Inspector Calls?

Write about:

• what life is shown to be like for women in the play
• how Priestley presents what life is like for women.

[30 marks]

AO4 [4 marks]

The first bullet asks for your interpretation of women’s experiences: for example, the differences between Sheila’s security and Eva’s vulnerability. The second asks you to explain Priestley’s presentation through dialogue, stage directions, character contrasts and the organisation of the play. These are connected tasks, so develop them together rather than writing a separate answer to each bullet.

For instance, saying that Mrs Birling refuses Eva help identifies an experience. Explaining how Mrs Birling’s dismissive language reveals the class prejudice behind that refusal analyses its presentation. Comparing her response with Sheila’s sympathy develops an argument about differences between women rather than treating them as one uniform group.

Before choosing between the two questions, mentally test the evidence available for each. A question may focus on a character, a theme or relationships between characters. Choose the one that allows you to discuss several precise moments and explain their significance.

What the assessment objectives mean in practice

The 30 literary marks are divided between three objectives:

These are connected parts of an argument, not three separate essays. A paragraph about Mrs Birling can explain Eva’s rejection, analyse the dialogue and explore the class assumptions behind it.

An informed personal response is your supported interpretation. You might argue that class determines how far women are protected, but that wealthy women can also reinforce the inequalities harming poorer women. That is a personal response because it is your judgement about the question, not because you describe your feelings.

Turning an interpretation into a workable plan

Begin with a thesis: a short statement of your overall answer. For the women question, a possible thesis is:

Priestley presents women’s lives as shaped by both gender and class: wealth protects Sheila and Mrs Birling, while Eva faces economic and sexual exploitation. Sheila’s developing independence offers hope of change.

This gives the essay direction. Each paragraph should develop, test or qualify that argument.

A useful plan records a claim, evidence, a method and the significance of the point. It can be brief:

This is one possible organisation, not a required paragraph count. Select the most useful evidence rather than everything you remember. An idea about men’s attitudes belongs in this essay when it helps explain women’s lives.

Developing analysis instead of retelling the plot

A strong paragraph moves from a claim to evidence, then explains how the evidence supports the claim. Ask: What has Priestley chosen? What meaning does that choice create? Why does that meaning matter to this question?

Methods include more than individual words. An Inspector Calls is a play performed through spoken prose dialogue and stage action. Sheila’s crying, characters interrupting one another and her return of the engagement ring can all be analysed. Eva never appears on stage: the audience learns about her through the accounts of people who exercised power over her. That dramatic choice is particularly relevant to a question about whose voice is heard.

Structure concerns how the work is organised. Mrs Birling condemns the father of Eva’s child before discovering that he is Eric. That ordering matters: Priestley makes her establish the judgement that will turn against her own family. Simply writing ‘Priestley uses structure’ would miss the explanation.

Context should deepen the same point. The play is set in 1912, when women were campaigning for the vote, and was written in 1945. Sheila’s growing willingness to challenge male authority can be connected to debates about women’s voice and independence. A post-war audience could also consider what kind of society should replace the inequalities exposed in the play. These connections explain Priestley’s choices; they are not a reason to interrupt the argument with a detached history paragraph.

Model answer: women, class and power

The following answer responds to Question 01 above.

Priestley presents women’s lives as unequal, with class determining how much protection and power they possess. Sheila and Mrs Birling enjoy material security, whereas Eva Smith is vulnerable to employers, wealthy customers and men. However, privilege does not make women completely independent, nor does being a woman guarantee sympathy for other women. Through Sheila’s development, Priestley suggests that these inequalities can be challenged when people recognise their responsibility towards others.

In Act One, Priestley presents marriage as involving expectations that women should accommodate men. Mrs Birling tells Sheila, “You’ll have to get used to that, just as I had”, when explaining Gerald’s absence through his business commitments. The phrase “have to” makes acceptance sound compulsory, while her own experience is offered as a model for her daughter. This reflects the gender hierarchy of the 1912 setting, in which male work is treated as more important than female disappointment. However, Sheila’s reply, “I don’t believe I will”, introduces resistance. Priestley establishes a contrast between accepting inherited expectations and questioning them.

Sheila’s comfortable life also contrasts with Eva’s economic insecurity. Mr Birling dismisses Eva after she helps lead a strike for higher wages, and Sheila later has her dismissed from Milwards because of jealousy. The sequence shows how a working woman can lose her livelihood through decisions made by people who have little need to consider the consequences. Sheila possesses power as a wealthy customer even though she is young and female. Priestley therefore makes class important alongside gender: women do not all experience the same disadvantages. Eva’s competence cannot protect her when the wishes of employers and customers take priority.

In Act Two, Gerald’s account presents a further danger for women without financial security. Daisy is threatened by Meggarty before Gerald offers her help, accommodation and money. His assistance appears compassionate, and Sheila later recognises that he initially helped out of pity. Nevertheless, the relationship leaves Daisy dependent on his choices. Gerald says, “I became at once the most important person in her life”, which suggests an imbalance between their positions. He can end the affair and return to his previous life, while she must leave the rooms. Priestley shows how protection by a wealthy man can offer temporary happiness without providing lasting independence.

Priestley also questions the different standards applied to privileged and vulnerable women. Gerald wants Sheila shielded from further questioning, but the Inspector reminds him that Eva was not protected from unpleasant experiences. This contrast exposes the limits of his gentlemanly concern. Sheila is valued as a prospective wife, while Eva can become a mistress without receiving equivalent security. Because Eva never appears on stage, her experiences reach the audience through other people’s accounts. This absence can suggest her lack of social power, while the Inspector’s investigation forces the family and audience to attend to a life they might otherwise overlook.

Mrs Birling demonstrates that powerful women can reinforce this inequality. In Act Two, her phrase “Girls of that class” reduces individuals to a social category, suggesting that she assumes she understands Eva without listening sympathetically. Her refusal to believe that Eva would reject stolen money exposes the prejudice behind her judgement. The charity should help women in distress, yet Mrs Birling uses her influence to exclude one. Priestley criticises a system in which assistance depends on wealthy people deciding who deserves it. For a post-war audience considering social reconstruction, Eva’s treatment raises the question of whether protection should depend on the goodwill of the privileged.

However, Sheila offers a different possibility. In Act Two, she tells Gerald, “I’m not a child, don’t forget. I’ve a right to know.” Her assertive dialogue challenges attempts to exclude her from knowledge of his affair. The word “right” makes understanding her own relationship a matter of entitlement rather than permission. In the 1912 setting, when women were campaigning for political representation, her demand for a voice has wider significance. Her return of the ring turns this independence into visible stage action. She does not simply accept the comfortable future arranged for her, but insists that honesty must change their relationship.

Finally, in Act Three, Sheila refuses Gerald’s renewed offer of the ring: “No, not yet. It’s too soon. I must think.” The short sentences make her refusal firm, but “not yet” leaves open the possibility of reconciliation. Priestley presents independence as the ability to judge rather than merely to reject. Her development offers hope without reversing Eva’s suffering. Written in 1945 but looking back to 1912, the play invites audiences to reconsider both the treatment of vulnerable women and the expectations placed on privileged ones. Ultimately, women’s lives can improve only if personal attitudes and the social inequalities supporting them are challenged.

Why the model reaches its level

This answer would reach Level 5, towards the top of the 21–25 mark range, because it maintains a thoughtful, developed argument about the whole play, integrates apt references and examines the effects of Priestley’s methods. It connects gender and class to specific moments, and uses the 1912 setting and post-war audience to explain the significance of women’s voice and social protection. Its consistently accurate spelling, punctuation and controlled expression support 4 marks for AO4.

The argument is strongest when it complicates an initial judgement: Gerald’s help is both compassionate and unequal; Sheila’s privilege gives her power but does not guarantee independence. To improve further, the answer could explore these tensions through more sustained, fine-grained analysis of the language and dramatic action.

Notice how the introduction supplies a line of argument rather than a list of characters. Each body paragraph then adds something distinct. The conclusion returns to that argument while drawing together the significance of Sheila’s development and Eva’s suffering.

Comparing Grade 5 and Grade 8 writing

Both paragraphs below address Sheila’s growing independence in Act Two.

The stronger paragraph does not merely use longer words. It examines precise wording, connects dialogue with stage action and develops a contextual distinction between women’s experiences. The movement is from explaining an idea to exploring its implications.

Making the final answer clear and coherent

A short introduction establishes the thesis. Body paragraphs develop distinct parts of it, with links that reflect the argument: ‘By contrast’ introduces a genuine opposition; ‘However’ introduces a complication. A brief conclusion draws together the judgement you have demonstrated.

Write in accurate Standard English. Control matters more than complicated vocabulary: a clear sentence explaining an effect is more useful than an ambitious sentence whose meaning becomes uncertain. Vary sentence structures where this helps you connect ideas, and use literary terms precisely. Reserve time to reread, checking that the argument remains focused and that spelling, punctuation and sentence structures communicate it effectively.

Task and marks

• Paper 2, Section A: answer one of two questions on your studied modern text.
• Closed book; no extract. Select relevant evidence from the whole work.
• Allow approximately 45 minutes: a workable split is 5 planning, 35 writing, 5 checking.
• 30 literary marks: AO1 12, AO2 12, AO3 6.
• 4 additional AO4 marks: accurate spelling and punctuation; effective vocabulary and sentence structures.

Plan the argument

1. Use both ‘Write about’ bullets: what is presented and how.
2. Form a thesis answering the full question.
3. Select distinct claims and precise supporting moments.
4. Note useful methods and relevant contextual connections.

Develop and conclude

Claim → evidence → analysis of the writer’s choice → significance for the argument.

Use dialogue, stage directions, character contrasts and the order of events where relevant. Integrate into the explanation.