Sheila versus Mrs Birling is one of the most useful character comparisons in An Inspector Calls because Priestley sets a daughter’s capacity to change against a mother’s determined refusal to do so. This is not simply a contrast between a likeable young character and an unlikeable older one. It is Priestley’s argument about class, responsibility and the possibility of social change.
For a high-level GCSE response, do not write two separate character profiles. Keep both women in the same paragraph wherever possible. Make a clear comparative point, select short quotations, then explain what Priestley makes each woman represent.
Sheila versus Mrs Birling: the central contrast
At the start of the play, both Sheila and Mrs Birling benefit from the same unequal society. Eva Smith works in Mr Birling’s factory and later seeks help from Mrs Birling’s charitable committee, while the women of the Birling family have money, social status and security. Both initially use their power in ways that harm Eva.
However, Sheila recognises the consequences of her behaviour almost immediately. She admits that she had Eva dismissed from Milwards because she was jealous and “in a bad temper”. The plain, honest admission matters. Sheila does not try to make herself sound innocent. When she learns that Eva may have died, she says, “I’ll never, never do it again.” The repetition suggests genuine horror and a determination to change.
Mrs Birling takes the opposite approach. Although she chaired a charity organisation that could have helped Eva, she insists, “I did nothing I’m ashamed of.” Her certainty is deeply ironic: the audience can see that she has failed the very person the charity should protect. Where Sheila accepts personal responsibility, Mrs Birling protects her reputation.
A strong comparison might begin like this:
> Priestley presents Sheila as capable of moral growth, whereas Mrs Birling remains trapped by class prejudice. Sheila’s repeated “never” shows genuine remorse after harming Eva Smith, while Mrs Birling’s confident claim that she has done “nothing” shameful reveals her refusal to examine her own actions.
That is already more analytical than saying that Sheila is kind and Mrs Birling is cruel. It identifies Priestley’s method, compares the characters closely and links their responses to responsibility.
Class prejudice and attitudes to Eva Smith
Mrs Birling’s language reveals the harshest version of upper-class prejudice. She repeatedly reduces Eva to “a girl of that class”. The demonstrative phrase “that class” creates distance. Mrs Birling does not see Eva as an individual with needs, feelings or dignity. Instead, she categorises her according to social rank and assumes that this rank tells her everything she needs to know.
Sheila begins the play with some of the same assumptions. When Mr Birling describes workers as “cheap labour”, she initially inhabits a privileged world in which other people’s work makes her comfortable life possible. Yet Sheila learns to reject this view. Her protest, “But these girls aren’t cheap labour – they’re people”, is one of the clearest signs of her development.
The conjunction “but” shows Sheila challenging her father directly, which would be significant for a young unmarried woman in 1912. More importantly, the contrast between “cheap labour” and “people” exposes the moral failure in treating workers as economic objects. Sheila begins to see Eva Smith as fully human; Mrs Birling never does.
Avoid claiming that Sheila is entirely innocent because she eventually changes. Priestley does not excuse her treatment of Eva. Sheila used her customer status to have a vulnerable worker dismissed because the girl looked “pretty”. Her later remorse is meaningful precisely because she has something real to regret. This nuance makes your argument more convincing.
Responsibility: accepting blame or passing it on
The play’s moral test is simple: what do the Birlings do once they understand their connection to Eva’s death? Sheila accepts blame, while Mrs Birling redirects it.
Mrs Birling’s refusal to help Eva is especially shocking because she holds a position of authority within a charitable institution. Her role should involve compassion, but she uses it to judge and punish. When Eva calls herself “Mrs Birling”, Mrs Birling treats this as an insult rather than asking why a desperate young woman might use the name of someone powerful. Priestley shows that her concern is not justice but status.
Her worst moment comes when she insists that the father of Eva’s child should be “dealt with very severely”. The audience later learns that this father is Eric, her own son. This is dramatic irony. Mrs Birling condemns Eric without knowing it, exposing her confidence as ignorant and her moral judgement as hypocritical.
Sheila, by contrast, understands the Inspector’s lesson before her parents do. She warns them not to “build up a kind of wall” between themselves and Eva. The metaphor of a “wall” suggests the barriers created by wealth and class. Sheila recognises that the family’s social position has allowed them to separate themselves from the consequences of their choices.
In an essay, link this directly to Priestley’s message. Written in 1945 but set in 1912, the play encourages a post-war audience to reject the selfish attitudes associated with the older generation. Priestley believed that people had a duty to care for one another, rather than defending privilege at all costs.
Priestley uses the generational divide carefully
It is tempting to write that the younger generation are good and the older generation are bad. That is too simple. Gerald is young but quickly tries to restore the old relationship with Sheila, offering her the ring again after the apparent hoax. Eric does show remorse, but he has also exploited Eva. Priestley’s real division is between those willing to learn and those who refuse to learn.
Mrs Birling represents a fixed, protected attitude. The opening stage direction describes her as “a rather cold woman”, immediately preparing the audience for her lack of warmth. She is also described as socially superior to her husband, which helps explain why she is so confident in judging others. Her authority is built on hierarchy.
Sheila challenges that hierarchy. At first, she appears “very pleased with life and rather excited”, which makes her seem sheltered and youthful. By the end, she speaks with far greater seriousness and moral authority than either parent. When the older Birlings try to dismiss the evening because the Inspector may not have been genuine, Sheila understands that the family’s actions still happened. Whether Eva Smith was one woman or represents many vulnerable women does not remove their guilt.
This is an important structural point. Priestley does not make Sheila change only in one emotional scene. He lets the audience watch her develop across the whole play, while Mrs Birling remains largely unchanged. Their contrasting reactions after the Inspector leaves are therefore the final proof of who has understood the message.
How to build an exam paragraph on Sheila and Mrs Birling
For a question on responsibility, class or generations, start with an argument rather than a biography. You might argue that Priestley uses Sheila and Mrs Birling to show that social change depends on people being honest about their privilege and its effects.
Then move through three connected ideas. First, compare their initial treatment of Eva. Next, contrast Sheila’s remorse with Mrs Birling’s self-justification. Finally, use their reactions at the end of the play to show that Sheila has learned while Mrs Birling has not.
Keep quotations short. “They’re people”, “that class”, “never, never” and “nothing I’m ashamed of” are enough to analyse closely. A short quotation gives you room to explain individual words and Priestley’s purpose. Longer quotations often lead students into retelling the plot instead of analysing it.
When you add context, make it serve the point. Do not bolt on a sentence about 1912 and 1945 at the end of every paragraph. Instead, explain that Sheila’s willingness to question class inequality would have supported Priestley’s hope for a fairer post-war Britain, while Mrs Birling embodies the old attitudes he wanted his audience to reject.
The most effective final thought is not that Sheila is simply better than her mother. It is that Priestley makes Sheila’s change possible, but not automatic. Her example asks the audience to do the difficult part too: admit responsibility, question comfortable assumptions and act differently next time.
