Using Context (AO3):

No text exists in a vacuum. It is a product of everything happening around its production (the life of the author, the “trends” in literature at the time, social and historical factors, and more) as well as its reception (how audiences would receive it at the time, and now – and every year between). Because of this, examiners think you should be able to talk about context when you talk about the text. Remember: Con = with; Text = text. 

Because the focus is on the relationship between text and context, there is no point in mentioning anything in this study note unless you are linking it to the text. This is not a History exam! If you are talking about Lady Macbeth as a woman wrestling with femininity and power, then by all means bring in Queen Elizabeth I. If not, save that contextual knowledge for another essay. Avoid a “brain dump” of all the knowledge you have; be picky and precise.

Try and bring some contextual knowledge into each analytical paragraph, but you shouldn’t need more than a sentence or two to explain it. Use a signpost phrase like “In the 17th Century”, or even “Contextually speaking” to alert your examiner to the AO3 opportunity, and then link your analysis to the contextual insight with a phrase like, “It is perhaps unsurprising, considering”, or “This factor may be explained by”. 

The Class Division and Social Inequality in Post-War Britain

When Blood Brothers was first performed in 1981, Britain was grappling with deep social and economic divisions that had intensified throughout the 20th century. The post-war ideal of a fairer, more equal society had begun to unravel under the weight of rising unemployment, inner-city decline, and the erosion of the welfare state. By the early 1980s, under Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government, working-class communities—particularly in the industrial North—faced harsh economic realities: factory closures, poverty, and growing feelings of abandonment. The sharp divide between the affluent and the poor became a defining feature of the era, and Russell’s play holds a mirror to this inequality.

Set in Liverpool, a city heavily affected by deindustrialisation, Blood Brothers explores how class determines everything—from education and employment prospects to relationships and self-worth. The contrast between the Lyons family’s comfortable, middle-class lifestyle and the Johnstones’ struggle to survive on benefits and odd jobs is stark. Through Mickey and Edward’s diverging paths, Russell critiques a society that claims to offer equal opportunity while systematically reinforcing social boundaries. The tragedy is not just personal, but political—revealing how class can quietly govern the entire course of a life.

Fate, Superstition, and the Myth of Meritocracy

Though set in a modern, urban Britain, Blood Brothers draws heavily on motifs of fate and superstition, linking the struggles of the working class to forces beyond their control. Mrs. Johnstone’s belief in curses and omens—"You never put new shoes on the table"—may seem irrational, yet it reflects a deeper truth: for those with little power or security, superstition becomes a way of understanding a world that seems rigged against them. Her fatalistic worldview is not merely folklore, but a coping mechanism for the unpredictability and hardship of poverty.

Russell intertwines this sense of doom with a sharp critique of the myth of meritocracy—the idea that anyone can succeed if they work hard enough. Despite sharing the same genetics, Edward and Mickey’s lives are shaped entirely by their environment. Mickey’s descent into depression and crime is not the result of moral failing, but systemic inequality. The Narrator’s constant, haunting refrain—“The devil’s got your number”—echoes the inescapable influence of class and circumstance. In this way, Russell challenges the audience to reconsider the extent to which individuals truly control their destinies. The play suggests that in a society divided by wealth and privilege, fate is often just another name for injustice.

Gender Roles and Domestic Responsibility

In Blood Brothers, Willy Russell subtly exposes the gendered expectations placed on women, particularly working-class mothers, in 20th-century Britain. Mrs. Johnstone is emblematic of this burden: a single mother abandoned by her husband, she is left to care for a growing family with limited financial means and little support. Her character reflects a society in which women were expected to bear responsibility for the home, even when they lacked the resources to do so. Unlike Mrs. Lyons, who is wealthier and more insulated from hardship, Mrs. Johnstone is judged for her poverty and fertility—"no more dancing" becomes a symbol of her lost youth and social freedom.

Despite her hardships, Mrs. Johnstone is presented with warmth and dignity, challenging the stigma surrounding working-class motherhood. Russell contrasts her emotional resilience and natural affection with Mrs. Lyons’s cold possessiveness, suggesting that love cannot be bought or contained within middle-class respectability. In doing so, the play critiques the way society often punishes poor women for circumstances beyond their control, while excusing or ignoring the failures of men—such as the absent Mr. Johnstone—altogether.

Education as a Vehicle of Inequality

Russell presents education not as a great leveller, but as a mechanism for reinforcing class divisions. From an early age, Edward and Mickey are steered along vastly different educational paths: Edward attends a prestigious school, receives tailored support, and is encouraged to succeed; Mickey is placed in an overcrowded, underfunded school where expectations are low and failure is common. Rather than offering equal opportunity, the education system in Blood Brothers functions to prepare each boy for their ‘place’ in society—Edward for leadership and success, Mickey for labour and survival.

The moment when the boys reunite after school years has passed is particularly revealing—Mickey is unemployed and struggling to articulate himself, while Edward is confident, articulate, and ready to attend university. Russell’s portrayal of these parallel lives critiques an education system that privileges the middle class while abandoning those from poorer backgrounds. Far from being a path to social mobility, education becomes another symbol of inequality—a system that rewards those who are already advantaged and neglects those who need it most.

Thatcher-Era Politics and the Working-Class Struggle

Blood Brothers was written and performed during the early years of Margaret Thatcher’s premiership—a time of profound political and social change in Britain. Thatcher’s Conservative government embraced free-market capitalism, privatisation, and a reduced role for the welfare state. These policies disproportionately affected working-class communities, particularly in the North of England, where industries were shut down and unemployment soared. Russell’s play can be read as a direct response to this political climate, portraying the devastating human cost of such economic restructuring.

Mickey’s descent into depression and criminality is not simply a personal tragedy—it reflects the despair of a generation whose futures were sacrificed to political ideology. When he loses his job and turns to crime, it’s not out of laziness or malice, but because the system has left him with no alternatives. Meanwhile, characters like Edward—whose family benefitted from stability and wealth—remain protected from the fallout. Through these contrasts, Russell exposes the widening gap between rich and poor, and the political indifference to the suffering of ordinary people. The play’s tragic ending becomes a powerful condemnation of a society that places profit over people and allows class to dictate destiny.