Grade 9 Model Essays

Want a top grade in GCSE English? Start using Grade 9 model essays - now! They show you exactly how to structure answers, analyse texts, and impress examiners. The more you study and practise with them, the better your own writing gets. May isn’t far away - don’t wait!

Priestley presents injustice through the systematic exploitation of Eva Smith, whose suffering represents the struggles of the working class under capitalism. Mr. Birling, a self-made industrialist, dismisses her for requesting a fair wage, coldly stating, "If you don’t come down sharply on some of these people, they’d soon be asking for the earth." The hyperbolic phrase "asking for the earth" reveals Birling’s deep-rooted belief that workers should remain subservient, with even their most basic demands seen as unreasonable. However, Priestley deliberately constructs Eva as a faceless, voiceless character, reinforcing the idea that the working class is often overlooked and dehumanised by those in power. By denying her a physical presence on stage, Priestley reflects how the lower classes are excluded from political discourse and economic control. Birling, in contrast, is the embodiment of unchecked capitalism—his obsession with profits and "lower costs and higher prices" reflects the self-serving ideology that led to widespread poverty and suffering. Through Birling’s complacency, Priestley critiques the ruling class and exposes how their greed fuels social injustice, urging audiences to reject these exploitative structures.

Similarly, Priestley presents the need for social change through the Inspector, who acts as the voice of morality and justice. His declaration, "We are members of one body. We are responsible for each other," is crucial, as the collective pronouns "we" and "our" directly oppose the individualistic attitudes of the Birlings. The Inspector is not merely a legal investigator but a symbolic force—his unwavering certainty and almost supernatural presence suggest he represents either Priestley’s socialist ideals or the moral conscience of society itself. His function is to challenge the Birling family, exposing the hypocrisy of their so-called "respectability" and demonstrating that true justice can only be achieved when people acknowledge their duty to others. His prophetic warning of "fire and blood and anguish" evokes apocalyptic imagery, possibly referencing the destruction of the two World Wars. This positions him as a visionary figure, warning audiences of the dire consequences of failing to address social inequality. Priestley, writing in the aftermath of World War II, uses the Inspector’s final speech to advocate for a more cooperative, socially responsible world, urging audiences to reject the mistakes of the past.

Moreover, Priestley uses dramatic irony to highlight the dangers of resisting social progress, portraying Mr. and Mrs. Birling as relics of an outdated social order. Mr. Birling’s confident assertion that war is "impossible", and that the Titanic is "unsinkable, absolutely unsinkable", is immediately undermined by the audience’s historical knowledge. This not only exposes his ignorance but also suggests that the capitalist class is fundamentally short-sighted, prioritising profit over long-term stability. Birling himself symbolises an outdated Edwardian mindset—his inability to evolve represents the rigidity of the British class system, which Priestley seeks to dismantle. In contrast, Sheila and Eric are presented as representatives of a new, more progressive generation. Sheila’s horrified realisation—"But these girls aren’t cheap labour – they’re people!"—marks a shift in her perspective, as she moves from being complicit in injustice to actively questioning it. This contrast between the older and younger generations reflects Priestley’s hope that post-war Britain will reject the selfish values of the past and move towards a more socially just future. By presenting the younger Birlings as capable of change, Priestley suggests that societal transformation is possible, but only if individuals take responsibility for their actions.

In conclusion, An Inspector Calls is ultimately a play about social justice, illustrating how injustice is embedded within capitalist structures and calling for a fundamental shift in societal attitudes. Priestley presents Eva Smith as a symbol of the voiceless working class, exploited and discarded by those in power, while the Inspector serves as a moral force demanding change. Through the generational divide between the Birlings, Priestley argues that social progress is possible but requires a conscious rejection of selfishness and exploitation. The play’s final moments leave the audience questioning their own responsibility, reinforcing Priestley’s urgent message that true justice can only be achieved through collective action.

Gerald’s attitude towards responsibility is revealed through his initial reaction to Eva Smith’s suffering, as he attempts to justify his actions rather than acknowledge his full culpability. When explaining his involvement, he states, “I didn’t install her there so that I could make love to her.” The verb “install” objectifies Eva, reducing her to something passive that could be placed somewhere for his convenience. This dehumanising language reflects how the upper class viewed the working class as dependent on their charity rather than individuals with their own agency. By portraying Gerald as someone who manipulates language to absolve himself, Priestley highlights the hypocrisy of the privileged elite, who claim to be benevolent while still exploiting those beneath them. Additionally, the defensive tone in “I didn’t” immediately establishes Gerald’s need to protect his reputation, rather than demonstrating genuine remorse. The audience sees through his attempt to distance himself from blame, reinforcing Priestley’s socialist message that privilege often blinds individuals to the consequences of their actions. Contextually, the Edwardian era was defined by rigid class hierarchies, where men of Gerald’s status often used their wealth to exercise power over vulnerable women. Priestley exposes this power imbalance to challenge his 1945 audience, encouraging them to dismantle these structures and embrace a fairer, more socially responsible society.

Gerald’s refusal to accept lasting responsibility is further demonstrated through his attempt to discredit the Inspector, stating, “There isn’t any such inspector. We’ve been had.” The phrase “We’ve been had” conveys a sense of entrapment, as though the Birlings and Gerald are the true victims rather than Eva. By shifting the focus away from Eva’s suffering, Priestley presents Gerald as someone who is more concerned with maintaining his social standing than engaging in genuine self-reflection. This reflects the performative morality of the upper class, who will only acknowledge wrongdoing when there are consequences, rather than because it is the right thing to do. Moreover, the declarative phrase “There isn’t any such inspector” implies certainty, suggesting Gerald clings to any technicality to avoid accountability. This is significant because it aligns him with Mr. and Mrs. Birling, who similarly dismiss the Inspector’s message once they believe there will be no public scandal. Contextually, Priestley wrote An Inspector Calls in the aftermath of World War II, when Britain was grappling with the consequences of social inequality. By showing how Gerald easily returns to complacency, Priestley warns his audience against repeating the mistakes of the past, urging them to reject the selfish individualism that had led to suffering in both world wars.

Gerald’s superficial understanding of responsibility is further emphasised in his final attempt to restore his engagement, asking Sheila, “Everything’s all right now, Sheila. What about this ring?” The phrase “everything’s all right” reflects Gerald’s belief that, because there are no legal consequences, moral responsibility no longer matters. His casual dismissal of the evening’s events reveals his inability to grasp the fundamental lesson of the play: that taking responsibility should not be contingent on public exposure. Priestley critiques this mindset by positioning Gerald as someone who treats morality as a social performance rather than a personal obligation. Furthermore, “What about this ring?” carries transactional connotations, as though their relationship is merely a contract that can be resumed once external pressure has disappeared. The ring itself is symbolic of patriarchal control, as it represents the way upper-class men sought to maintain power over women through material gestures rather than emotional sincerity. In an Edwardian context, marriage was often a tool to preserve social status rather than an expression of love, and Gerald’s insistence on reinstating the engagement reflects his desire to maintain appearances rather than accept true change. Priestley uses this moment to encourage his audience to break free from outdated traditions and embrace a new, more progressive vision of society, where individuals are held accountable regardless of external consequences.

Ultimately, Gerald serves as a symbol of those who resist change, prioritising self-preservation over genuine reform. By portraying him as initially charming and seemingly reasonable, Priestley lulls both the Birlings and the audience into trusting him, only to reveal his true selfishness by the end. This dramatic shift is key to the play’s moral message: those who appear respectable are not necessarily good, and responsibility must be accepted even when authority figures are not there to enforce it. Through Gerald’s failure to learn, Priestley exposes the dangers of complacency and urges his audience to take responsibility for their own actions in order to create a more just and equal society.

Mrs. Birling embodies the flaws of the upper class through her lack of empathy and moral superiority, particularly in her dismissal of Eva Smith’s plea for help. When justifying her refusal to assist Eva, she asserts, “I consider I did my duty.” The verb “consider” suggests self-importance, as though Mrs. Birling believes she alone determines what is morally right. This exposes her arrogance, as she positions herself as a moral authority while refusing to acknowledge the real consequences of her actions. Priestley presents this as a key flaw of the upper class—their belief that social status automatically equates to moral superiority, despite evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, “my duty” is deeply ironic, as she completely fails in the fundamental duty of charity—to help those in need. Instead of showing compassion, she weaponises her privilege to punish Eva for daring to seek assistance. In the Edwardian era, upper-class women were expected to participate in charitable organisations, but Priestley exposes the hypocrisy of this system, showing how it was often used to reinforce class divisions rather than alleviate suffering. By portraying Mrs. Birling as an emblem of this hypocrisy, Priestley forces his audience to question the legitimacy of the upper class’s moral authority and encourages a shift towards genuine social responsibility.

Priestley further exposes the flaws of the upper class through Mrs. Birling’s refusal to accept blame, even when faced with undeniable evidence of her wrongdoing. When the Inspector confronts her, she dismisses responsibility, insisting, “I accept no blame for it at all.” The absolute phrase “no blame at all” demonstrates her complete unwillingness to acknowledge her part in Eva’s downfall. This highlights a key characteristic of the ruling class—their ability to detach themselves from the suffering they cause, maintaining a rigid belief in their own innocence. However, Priestley reinforces this flaw not just through her dialogue but through her structural role in the play. Mrs. Birling is the last character to be interrogated, which positions her as the final obstacle to change before the Inspector’s departure. This structural placement emphasises how her rigid views prevent true progress, reinforcing Priestley’s wider message that the upper class resists accountability at all costs. Unlike Sheila and Eric, who gradually recognise their faults, Mrs. Birling remains entirely unchanged by the end of the play. In an Edwardian context, this reflects the resistance of the aristocracy to the growing demand for social reform, as they saw no reason to relinquish their privilege. Priestley, writing in 1945 when Britain was moving towards a more socialist society, uses Mrs. Birling as a warning—without accountability, those in power will continue to perpetuate injustice without consequence.

Mrs. Birling also exemplifies the flaws of the upper class through her obsession with maintaining a respectable appearance, even at the expense of honesty. When trying to reassert control, she insists, “I was the only one who didn’t give in to him.” The phrase “didn’t give in” frames accepting responsibility as a sign of weakness rather than moral growth. This reflects how the upper class viewed any challenge to their authority as a personal attack, rather than an opportunity for self-improvement. Additionally, the pronoun “I” isolates her from the rest of the family, reinforcing how she sees herself as superior even to her own children. This is significant because, while Sheila and Eric evolve throughout the play, Mrs. Birling remains entirely resistant to change. Priestley uses her as a contrast to the younger generation to illustrate the possibility of social progress—while the older, aristocratic figures refuse to learn, there is hope that younger people can reject these outdated values. Contextually, this aligns with Priestley’s post-war vision for Britain, where the rigid class system of the Edwardian era was being replaced with a more egalitarian society. By presenting Mrs. Birling as a relic of the past, Priestley encourages his audience to embrace this change rather than cling to the failings of the old system.

Ultimately, Priestley uses Mrs. Birling to expose the deep flaws of the upper class, highlighting their hypocrisy, lack of accountability, and obsession with status. Unlike other characters, she remains entirely unrepentant, reinforcing Priestley’s argument that privilege often breeds complacency. Through her failure to learn, Priestley warns his audience of the dangers of maintaining social inequality and urges them to reject the outdated, self-serving attitudes of the ruling class.