politics essay plan

How to Structure Your A Level Politics Essay

Are you struggling to write your next politics essay? Hundreds of thousands of students take their A-levels each year, all of them aim to get the best possible grade. But how do you get started getting the best Politics A-level grade you can? Read on for our guide to structure the perfect A Level politics essay, useful for both AQA and Edexcel boards.

Understand the Politics Essay Question

First, you need to understand your essay question to formulate a proper response to it. Read the question very carefully, and don’t make assumptions about what you’re reading. It’s easy to answer the question that isn’t in front of you. Circle any keywords that appear in the question, and make sure you understand the command word (such as evaluate, analyse or to what extent).

Get Planning

Be sure to start your politics essay by making a plan. This involves gathering your thoughts about what could ‘support’ or ‘oppose’ the argument. You should also plan what case studies you need to bring in, alongside planning which side of the argument you sit on. There are up to 33% of marks available for your conclusions and which side of the essay you are on, so make sure to include this!

You can also look at past papers  to help you get an idea of what you should aim for when writing your own essay. A Level Politics past papers are a very useful resource as they allow you to see what the structure of the exam is, and the style of questions you could be asked.

Start Your Layout

The general layout of your politics essay should be as followed:

• Introduction: give definitions, the general outline of your argument, and the side you support.
• Point (AO1)
• Evidence (AO1/AO2)
• Explain (AO2)
• Conclusion: bring the argument back around and firmly state your opinion on the debate.

You’ll need at least two paragraphs to argue one side of the question you’re evaluating and at least two paragraphs to argue the other side of the question. Each separate point in your essay should be its own paragraph to ensure it’s readable and clearly understood, with relevant examples/evidence and detailed explanations. Each paragraph should finish by linking back to the question in order to give strong and substantiated judgement.

And, when you’re writing a politics essay, follow the directions down to the letter. If the question has a source included, make sure you use it to form the basis of your arguments. The “rubric” on the question will include guidance such as referring to specific points or using a source.

When you use a source to support an argument, make sure you explain why the fact that this source supports you matters — why a source is authoritative, in other words.

If you’re having trouble, start by laying out your answer in a table so that you can see exactly what you need to get done over the course of your answer to support your argument. And, that way, you’ll avoid missing anything important while you write your essay.

Master the Assessment Objectives

There are three Assessment Objectives (AOs) for your A Level Politics essays:

• AO1: knowledge & understanding
• AO2: analysis
• Ao3: conclusions & evaluation

It’s important to note that a large proportion of your marks come from assessment objectives other than knowledge. This means that you need to be able to analyse and evaluate your points rather than memorise facts. It’s therefore critical to practice your exam technique to maximise your marks in these assessment objectives.

Start Your Politics Essay Today

What are you waiting for? Begin writing your A-level politics essay, and with this formatting guide, you’ll be sure to get top grades.

By becoming a member , you can get access to a range of model essays. This will allow you to see what an A* politics essay looks like.

Table of Contents

• In the News

Join Study Politics Now

Access more useful study resources for A-level Politics with a Study Politics membership.

• International
• Schools directory
• Resources Jobs Schools directory News Search

Politics A-Level Edexcel DETAILED Essay Plans

Subject: Government and politics

Age range: 16+

Resource type: Assessment and revision

Last updated

8 April 2023

• Share through email
• Share through twitter
• Share through linkedin
• Share through facebook
• Share through pinterest

Comprehensive Government and Politics essay plans covering topics:

• democracy and participation,
• political parties,
• electoral systems,
• voting behaviour and media
• the constitution,
• parliament,
• Prime Minister and executive,
• relationships between the branches.

Includes 4+ devoloped points with relevant evidence (AO1

I personally, comfortably secured an A* with these essay plans

*If you would like to purchase individual units, check out my other resources.

Tes paid licence How can I reuse this?

Your rating is required to reflect your happiness.

It's good to leave some feedback.

Something went wrong, please try again later.

This resource hasn't been reviewed yet

To ensure quality for our reviews, only customers who have purchased this resource can review it

Report this resource to let us know if it violates our terms and conditions. Our customer service team will review your report and will be in touch.

Not quite what you were looking for? Search by keyword to find the right resource:

The Politics Shed- A Free Text Book for all students of Politics.

How to answer an Edexcel exam question on socialism

You could get asked two questions on socialism in Paper 1. There is no guarantee that the two questions will be on more than one idea. All questions start with ‘To what extent…?’, so they are looking for you to evaluate the extent of agreement or disagreement.

Question topics

Questions will focus on the agreement and disagreement within the various strands. In socialism this is more complex, as you have three strands: revolutionary (Marxist), social democracy and the Third Way. Within these strands you also have division over the means (how to achieve goals) and ends (what kind of society you are trying to create). Do not worry about the strands within social democracy — you do not need to explore the difference between democratic socialism and social democracy. Questions may ask generally about agreement or disagreement between strands or will focus on specific areas such as the state. Make sure you are clear which type of question you are answering.

Divisions in socialism

·          Human nature: How collectivist is human nature? How important is the concept of common humanity ? To what extent are we the product of our environment? Marxists examine how human nature is damaged by capitalist society, but supporters of the Third Way believe that individuals can flourish within the globalised free market.

·         Society : Revolution or evolution as a means to achieve goals? Are socialists aiming for a completely equal society (in economic terms) or a more equal society? Socialists do not agree on what is meant by equality: while revolutionaries want social equality, social democrats wish to narrow the gap and Third Way supporters favour equal opportunities and reducing poverty.

·         State : Should the state — as a tool of the bourgeoisie, according to revolutionary socialists — be abolished by revolutionary means? Or, as social democrats believe, can you use the neutral state to achieve equality of outcome using intervention, such as nationalisation and progressive taxation?

·          Economy: Should capitalism be abolished via revolution or other means? Or can it be tamed and regulated, and economic growth used to help the many and not the few? Third Way supporters go even further and pragmatically support the free market.

Introduction

These essays are quite short (Edexcel 24 marks so about 25-30 minutes) So a one or two-line introduction will do. E xplain the debate, e.g.:

Although all socialists agree that society should be much more equal, there is significant disagreement over how to achieve it and what exactly it would mean.

Then add your line of argument, e.g.:

The divisions within socialism over the role of the state far outweigh the areas of agreement.

Socialists used to disagree significantly over the means of achieving their goals — revolution or evolution — but there is now much less disagreement, as revolutionary socialism has been discredited.

This is AO3, and must not be left to your conclusion — the examiner will expect to see it throughout the essay.

Main body of essay

The danger here is that you focus on the areas of division, as there are so many within socialism. Another hazard is that you simply describe the three strands in separate paragraphs and lose focus on the question until your conclusion. As all questions ask ‘To what extent…?’ you must look at agreement as well as disagreement (AO2). If your line of argument is that there is more disagreement than agreement, then start with a paragraph highlighting all the areas socialists agree on, in relation to the topic.

Use an agree disagree sandwich. This means three paragraphs in the main body of your essay with agree/disagree/agree or disagree/ agree/ disagree- depending on your line of argument. Your middle paragraph i.e. the line you are not arguing should be qualified - e.g distance yourself with phrases like 'It can be argued....' and end the middle paragraph with a restatement of your line. e.g 'Granted there are some differences/agreements  over ........however more fundamental differences/ agreements are 

 Add in a key thinker.

Areas of agreement:

·        A critique of capitalism as fundamentally damaging to human nature and society.

·        Common humanity and cooperation are natural.

·        A belief that inequality is not due to differing ability or effort but is the result of the fundamentally unfair structure of a society based on inherited privilege.

·        The plasticity, sociability and malleability of human nature — a positive and optimistic view of the possibility of improvement and the role of our surroundings in creating our personalities.

·        Equality of outcome — the need to eradicate or narrow the gap between rich and poor to ensure fairness, freedom and justice for all.

Finish your paragraph with a clear judgement (AO3) and link back to the exact wording of the question, such as:

Although there are significant areas of agreement over capitalism, the areas of disagreement between the strands are much more significant.

Then move onto the areas of division and pick out 2–3 significant aspects to write on. Use key thinkers to show contrast, e.g.:

Marx argued that capitalism created two classes, whose interests were utterly in conflict and irreconcilable. However, Crosland, writing in the mid-twentieth century, updated this view to argue that there was now a large and growing managerial class in the middle, and that instead of focusing on capitalism, socialists should focus on how to create a more equal society using progressive taxation and a generous welfare state.

Differences within socialism

Make sure you use the Edexcel specification terminology. For example, ‘bourgeoisie and proletariat’ is much more accurate than ‘rich and poor’ or ‘upper and lower class’.

Integrating the thinkers

You need to cite at least two thinkers or your mark will be capped. Three would be wiser. Use them to support and explain your ideas, rather than adding them to the end of a paragraph as an afterthought. For example, you can use Marx’s analysis of capitalism to explain the revolutionary socialist approach to the economy. Beatrice Webb is useful, as she bridges the gap between revolutionary and evolutionary socialism, rejecting violence and revolution but seeking radical alternatives to capitalism. She could be used to show how socialists agree in terms of their analysis of capitalism, even if they don’t agree on methods.

Do I need examples?

It is not necessary to include recent examples in socialism, such as Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn. There is probably no time, although you could include them in a conclusion if linked to the question, for example mentioning Sanders to show how Third Way ideas have not necessarily triumphed. Examples can be used to develop your AO2 evaluation and analysis points, such as showing how the creation of the welfare state by the postwar Labour government demonstrates how social democrats used the mixed economy and state intervention in order to create a more equal society. That said, you are very limited for time and it is much more important to include the key thinkers.

Do not sit on the fence. To get those AO3 marks you cannot argue that there is both disagreement and agreement. For example:

Socialists do agree that capitalism is deeply flawed and damaging to human nature and society. Therefore the agreement is more significant than the disagreement, which focuses on the alternatives.

clearly comes down on the side of agreement. You will have already mentioned your viewpoint in the introduction and in each paragraph, so it should not come as any surprise to the examiner.

How to write an essay on socialism and common humanity

• Ethics & Leadership
• Fact-Checking
• Media Literacy
• The Craig Newmark Center
• Reporting & Editing
• Ethics & Trust
• Tech & Tools
• Business & Work
• Educators & Students
• Training Catalog
• Custom Teaching
• For ACES Members
• All Categories
• Broadcast & Visual Journalism
• Fact-Checking & Media Literacy
• In-newsroom
• Memphis, Tenn.
• Minneapolis, Minn.
• St. Petersburg, Fla.
• Washington, D.C.
• Poynter ACES Introductory Certificate in Editing
• Poynter ACES Intermediate Certificate in Editing
• Ethics & Trust Articles
• Get Ethics Advice
• Fact-Checking Articles
• International Fact-Checking Day
• Teen Fact-Checking Network
• International
• Media Literacy Training
• MediaWise Resources
• Ambassadors
• MediaWise in the News

Support responsible news and fact-based information today!

The meaning, history and political rhetoric surrounding the term abortion ‘ban’

Experts say ‘ban’ has emerged as shorthand for nearly all abortion prohibitions. the blunt term often leaves room for political spin..

Ban: Merriam-Webster  defines  it as “a legal or formal prohibition.”

But in the 2024 election cycle — the first general election since Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that enshrined a constitutional right to an abortion, was  overturned  — the term has morphed into polarizing political rhetoric. “Ban” has become synonymous with abortion and the wave of anti-abortion laws enacted in states across the country.

For example, on President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign website, the  abortion policy page’s  title reads: “Donald Trump wants to ban abortion nationwide. Re-elect Joe Biden to stop him and protect reproductive freedom.”

Trump appointed three of the U.S. Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn Roe. After years of inconsistency, Trump  most recently  has said that laws on abortion should be left to the states and that he wouldn’t sign a national abortion ban.

Many Democrats and abortion rights activists have also zeroed in on down-ballot Republicans, accusing them of supporting abortion “bans,” even if their position allows for some access.

“Yesterday, we celebrated Mother’s Day. Today, I remind you that politicians like Bernie Moreno, who supports a national abortion ban, don’t want moms making their own healthcare decisions. Abortion rights are on Ohio’s ballot again in 2024,” Ohio Democrat Allison Russo wrote May 13  on X .

Moreno, who has Trump’s support, is a Republican running for Senate in Ohio against Democratic incumbent Sen. Sherrod Brown. Moreno  has said  that he would vote for a 15-week national abortion ban.

Political discourse experts say “ban” has emerged as shorthand for nearly all abortion prohibitions. The blunt term, nuanced in its myriad interpretations, often leaves room for political spin.

What exactly is a ban?

“Ban” is not a medical term; people across the political spectrum on abortion define it differently.

The word has two main rhetorical functions, political discourse experts said. When people talk to like-minded people about a particular issue, it can reinforce the group’s beliefs. Or, it can label opponents as “extreme.”

“For example, when Joe Biden talks about an assault weapon ban, he’s not trying to convert skeptics — he’s signaling to people who already agree with them that they’re on the same team,” said Ryan Skinnell, an associate professor of rhetoric and writing at San Jose State University. “But the other way ‘ban’ works is to identify someone you disagree with as extreme. Groups who want to keep certain books out of libraries, for instance, rarely describe themselves as in support of book banning. Their opponents adopt that language.”

This dual usage reflects in the abortion fight. Abortion-rights activists use “ban” to signal an infringement on personal freedom and autonomy over medical decisions. Anti-abortion proponents may use “ban” to signal a protection of fetal life. For example, when introducing legislation that ban abortion at various stages,  Republican   politicians  have often framed the bills as moral imperatives that protect unborn life.

Peter Loge, a George Washington University professor who directs the school’s Project on Ethics in Political Communication, said ban has historically meant “to eliminate” or “not have,” but politicians employ a strategic ambiguity that allows listeners to assign their own meaning. Loge, who served as a senior adviser in former President Barack Obama’s Food and Drug Administration, said Obama did this with one of his campaign slogans: “Change We Can Believe In.”

“Well, what does ‘change’ mean? Clearly, it means whatever he thinks it means, but as a listener you will ascribe it to mean whatever you think it means,” Loge said. “So, if I think most abortions should be illegal and in some cases it’s OK, I can support a ban, because it’s a ban with exceptions. The listener plugs in whatever caveats they prefer and ascribes them to the speaker. This is a technique as far back as Aristotle, who wrote that the listener provides the reasoning for themselves.”

Loge, like Skinnell, said “ban” is often used in politics to showcase extremism and the threat of something being taken away.

“It’s the rhetoric of anger. ‘They want to take your rights from you. … Now it’s an ideological divide and it works because we’re going to be more motivated to vote,” Loge said. “People are more concerned about losing something they have than they are interested in getting something new. We are risk-averse.”

Nathan Stormer, a rhetoric professor at the University of Maine and an expert in abortion rhetoric, said the term usually shows up when people refer to making abortion illegal in pregnancy’s earlier stages. But, he added, although common usage typically refers to a first trimester threshold, there is “no set of rules.”

“Because it is not a consistently used term, I think when people do not specify what they are referring to, others may take them to mean at conception or very early, but one has to inquire about context,” Stormer wrote in an email.

How abortion ban rhetoric evolved

Before the 1970s, there was little discussion about abortion bans.

Although legal abortion existed in various states at various stages before the  Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973,  the ruling’s enshrinement of abortion rights across the country, helped galvanize opposition and mobilize anti-abortion groups.

“There were book bans, pornography bans, dancing bans, and so on. But even most conservative politicians and church groups weren’t especially concerned with abortion as an issue, and there was virtually no concerted political interest in bans,” Skinnell, from San Jose University, said. “That began to change with Richard Nixon.”

Skinnell said the former president’s advisers, in coordination with evangelical Christian church leaders, determined they could connect abortion to left-wing social movements, such as feminism, by linking them consistently in speeches and campaign materials.

“The idea of abortion bans came directly out of that partnership,” Skinnell said, “and it gathered steam in right-wing and conservative circles throughout the next few decades.”

Republicans further popularized the term in the mid-1990s, when they advocated for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which President George W. Bush  signed into law  in 2003. The campaign to pass that legislation, experts said, introduced the term “ban” as the abortion restriction’s “stated intent.”

Political rhetoric experts said much of the medical literature and media coverage before Roe v. Wade often used terms such as “illegal” because abortion was considered a criminal act in most states.

“Even in the early stages of criminalizing abortion in the U.S., I don’t think ban was a common term,” Stormer said. “When a restriction is being put in place where before there was not one, people tend to resort to the word ban.”

Emily Winderman, a University of Minnesota professor specializing in the rhetorical study of health and medicine, said that over time abortion “bans” have manifested  as “incremental” restrictions throughout gestational development to the complete prohibitions seen in multiple states today.

For instance, she said, “heartbeat bills,” which typically refer to laws that make abortion illegal as early as six weeks of pregnancy, were controversial when they emerged around 2010, but have become more prevalent since the Trump administration and Roe’s overturning.

Winderman also said bans can appear via code and ordinance restrictions, such as banning  the type of use for a particular piece of real estate — making abortion clinics impossible to place.

“It’s important to understand bans as a complex strategy that includes gestational limits as well as limitations on who can provide care and where,” she said.

Shifting abortion laws across the U.S. have made “ban” an increasingly common term.  Forty-one states  now ban abortion at different points in pregnancy — 14 enforce total bans, three enforce six-week bans and others restrict abortion before fetal viability.

Stormer, from the University of Maine, pointed to Arizona’s Supreme Court reinstating an 1864 law that completely banned abortion. (It  has since been repealed. ) At the time the law was written, conception was not well understood, and there was no clear sense of fertilization or how it worked.

“Reinstating that law was a great example of how the conflict over abortion has remained steady and largely recognizable, but its terms and understandings have been constantly moving, which says something,” Stormer said. “So, specific words do important work, but they do not capture what is happening rhetorically, in my opinion. The moving terminologies are the waves crashing, but the tides are the thing.”

This fact check was originally published by PolitiFact , which is part of the Poynter Institute. See the sources for this fact check here .

Opinion | Behind the scenes of CBS News’ interview with Pope Francis

The pope gave Norah O’Donnell a historic, hourlong interview from the Vatican. No topic was off-limits.

How a Supreme Court case most people likely have never heard of is reshaping LGBTQ+ rights

A 2020 Supreme Court case called Bostock v. Clayton County has led to a number of policy and legal shifts

CNN mourns the loss of commentator Alice Stewart

Stewart, a veteran political adviser who worked on several Republican presidential campaigns, was 58.

The best Pulitzer leads (or ledes) in 2024

Longtime writing coach Roy Peter Clark gives this year’s award to a gripping narrative about two octogenarians who died in a hurricane

Benny Johnson’s claim that Joe Biden set up Donald Trump with classified documents is false

The conservative podcaster claimed the Biden administration framed former President Donald Trump by shipping boxes of classified documents to his home

You must be logged in to post a comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Start your day informed and inspired.

Get the Poynter newsletter that's right for you.