How to Write a High-Scoring Introduction for A-Level Religious Studies Essays
One of the most common mistakes A-Level Religious Studies students make is rushing the introduction. Too often, they either write something vague like “This essay will discuss whether Natural Law is useful…” or jump straight into arguments without first setting out the intellectual landscape of the question.
At OCR, AQA, WJEC, and other major exam boards, examiners aren’t just looking for students who can name-drop scholars or memorise theories. They want to see that you understand the bigger picture—how the question connects to wider debates in philosophy, ethics, and theology, and that you can frame your argument clearly from the start.
In this blog, an experienced tutor and Head of Religious Studies at an award-winning school shares the key techniques you need to write introductions that impress examiners, set up a strong line of argument, and make your essays stand out.
Three things to include in a perfect RS introduction
A strong introduction should do three things:
Set the context – show the examiner you understand the nuance of the question and how it connects to wider debates in philosophy, theology, or ethics.
Present a hypothesis – state clearly how you will answer the question, in a way that is analytical rather than descriptive.
Outline your thesis – map out the two-pronged argument you will explore, demonstrating depth, nuance, and a sense of hierarchy in your reasoning.
1. Establishing Complex Context
Before you even touch your specific question, you must frame it in the context of the wider intellectual backdrop. Ask yourself: What is really at stake here?
For example:
In a metaethics essay, this might be subjective vs objective reality (is morality mind-independent or not?).
In an ethics essay, you might set up realism vs anti-realism, or absolutism vs relativism.
In theology, you could frame the question against theology vs secularism or faith vs reason.
By briefly naming and sketching these broader tensions, you show the examiner that you understand how this question links to the central debates of the discipline.
2. Presenting Your Hypothesis
Once you’ve established the context, you need to narrow down to your specific question. At this stage, don’t just say what the essay is “about” – say what you think the essay will show. This is your hypothesis.
For example:
“This essay will argue that while Aquinas’ Natural Law offers an intuitively clear framework that appeals to human reason, it is ultimately limited when judged by both internal logical coherence and external modern critiques.”
Notice: it doesn’t give the full answer yet, but it sets the direction.
3. Outlining a Two-Pronged Thesis
Now you want to give your thesis – two interlinked, nuanced, hierarchical points that will structure your essay. These aren’t “Point A and Point B” in a simplistic sense; they should develop one another.
For example:
Thesis 1: Natural Law has enduring strengths because it connects human purpose to rational moral order.
Thesis 2: However, its reliance on teleology and essentialism (the belief that things, including humans, objects, or concepts, have a fixed, unchanging essence – an inner nature that defines what they truly are) means it struggles to survive modern secular, scientific, and pluralistic challenges.
The hierarchy here is that the first thesis establishes its strength, but the second shows the deeper weakness – the movement is analytical.
4. Applying a PIE Framework
At this point, you can add sophistication by briefly hinting at your PIE analysis. This is where you present your analysis (AO2):
P – Personal view: Does this theory “work” in practice? Is it intuitive or counterintuitive?
I – Internal critique: Does the theory stand up logically? Do the premises follow? What would scholars say (e.g. Barth’s critique of Natural Law)?
E – External critique: What happens when we test it against other frameworks- e.g. science, modern theology, feminism, secularism, ancient philosophy?
In the introduction, you’re not giving all the details yet; you are just showing that you will critically assess the theory from various angles.
5. Stating Your Intentions
Finally, finish the introduction with a clear signpost of where you expect to conclude. This should be succinct and analytical – never waffle.
For example:
“Ultimately, this essay will suggest that while Natural Law remains a valuable tool for understanding moral reasoning, its claims to universal authority collapse when scrutinised by both modern science and post-Enlightenment ethical thought.” This signals confidence: you’ve already mapped the intellectual journey.
