Assessment structure revision notes

Assessment structure

Political context

Paper 1 assesses Government and politics of the UK, Paper 2 assesses Government and politics of the USA and comparative politics, and Paper 3 assesses Political ideas. AQA A-Level Politics 7152 requires explicit comparison between UK and US government and politics. The comparison should use structural, rational and cultural approaches while keeping institutions, constitutional powers and political behaviour distinct.

Comparative method

A structural approach compares formal institutions, constitutional rules and distributions of power. A rational approach considers how political actors respond to incentives and constraints. A cultural approach examines values, conventions and expectations. AO2 is strongest when the UK and USA are compared in the same analytical sentence: identify a similarity or difference, explain its cause and show its political consequence.

Constitutional arrangements

The UK constitution is uncodified and shaped by statute, common law, conventions and authoritative works, with parliamentary sovereignty remaining central. The US Constitution is codified, federal and built around separation of powers and checks and balances. Both systems limit and organise public power, whereas their constitutional foundations give courts, legislatures and executives different relationships. This difference matters because accountability and institutional conflict operate through different legal and political routes.

Executives and legislatures

The UK Prime Minister normally leads the government from Parliament and depends on confidence in the House of Commons. The US President is separately elected and cannot normally rely on congressional control in the same constitutional way. One viewpoint is that the President is constitutionally stronger because of a separate mandate and executive powers. However, another view is that a Prime Minister with a disciplined parliamentary majority may exercise greater practical control over legislation. Overall, the judgement depends on party control, institutional checks and political circumstances.

Judiciaries

The UK Supreme Court interprets law within parliamentary sovereignty and cannot invalidate an Act of Parliament as unconstitutional. The US Supreme Court can use judicial review against legislation that conflicts with the codified Constitution. Appointment, tenure, constitutional text and political culture also affect independence and influence. Evidence from a ruling or appointment dispute should be used to test whether formal powers or political context better explain judicial impact.

Electoral and party systems

UK and US politics both show major-party competition, but electoral arrangements, candidate selection, party organisation and campaign finance differ. US primaries and the separately elected presidency create incentives that differ from UK parliamentary party leadership and constituency competition. Avoid treating two-party dominance as identical: analyse how electoral rules, federalism, regional support, finance and political culture shape opportunities for third parties and independents.

Pressure groups

Pressure groups in both systems seek access, publicity and policy influence. UK groups may target ministers, Parliament and consultation, whereas US groups also work through Congress, federal courts and campaign-finance structures. Insider and outsider methods, litigation, lobbying and public campaigning should be connected to institutional access. Effectiveness must be judged through evidence rather than assumed from membership or spending alone.

Civil rights

UK rights protection combines statute, common law and the Human Rights Act, whereas US civil rights are strongly shaped by the codified Constitution, amendments and judicial review. Campaigns in both countries use litigation, protest, lobbying and legislative pressure, but the available remedies differ. Rights and liberties are related but not automatically interchangeable, and the UK and US Supreme Courts do not possess identical constitutional remedies.

Evidence and evaluation

Use stable specification evidence: constitutional provisions, Acts, conventions, institutional procedures, electoral rules, court powers and established campaign methods. When a contemporary example is used, explain the political principle it illustrates rather than relying on an unsupported current-affairs claim. AO3 should present one view, a competing view, the evidence for each and an overall judgement that is conditional on context.

Exam focus

For a comparative essay, organise paragraphs by the feature being compared rather than by country. Begin with accurate AO1 knowledge, make an explicit UK-US comparison for AO2, and use evidence to support AO3 evaluation. For extract work, identify the supplied argument before applying outside knowledge. Do not confuse evaluation with personal opinion or comparison with two separate descriptions.

Common mistakes

• Treating the Prime Minister and President as constitutionally equivalent.
• Giving the UK Supreme Court the US Court's power to invalidate primary legislation.
• Treating devolution and federalism as identical.
• Assuming both countries use one identical electoral system.
• Treating pressure groups as political parties.
• Listing evidence without explaining its comparative significance.

Objective-by-objective revision

Linear qualification and papers: Explain that AQA A-level Politics 7152 is a linear qualification with all assessments taken at the end of the course and in the same series.

AO1 focus: define constitutional arrangements using accurate institutional and constitutional terminology. Use parliamentary sovereignty, codification, federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, conventions and judicial review only where it directly explains the objective. AO2 comparison: the UK constitution is uncodified and retains parliamentary sovereignty, whereas the US Constitution is codified, federal and based on a formal separation of powers. Explain why this matters because different constitutional rules alter institutional checks and accountability; do not write separate UK and USA descriptions. AO3 evaluation: test a structural explanation against rational and cultural viewpoints. Use an Act, convention, constitutional provision, ruling or institutional example, explain the limitation of each view and reach an overall judgement that follows from the evidence.

Linear qualification and papers: Identify Paper 1 as Government and politics of the UK, assessed by a two-hour written examination worth 77 marks and one third of the A-level.

AO1 focus: define constitutional arrangements using accurate institutional and constitutional terminology. Use parliamentary sovereignty, codification, federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, conventions and judicial review only where it directly explains the objective. AO2 comparison: the UK constitution is uncodified and retains parliamentary sovereignty, whereas the US Constitution is codified, federal and based on a formal separation of powers. Explain why this matters because different constitutional rules alter institutional checks and accountability; do not write separate UK and USA descriptions. AO3 evaluation: test a structural explanation against rational and cultural viewpoints. Use an Act, convention, constitutional provision, ruling or institutional example, explain the limitation of each view and reach an overall judgement that follows from the evidence.

Linear qualification and papers: Identify Paper 2 as Government and politics of the USA and comparative politics, assessed by a two-hour written examination worth 77 marks and one third of the A-level.

AO1 focus: define constitutional arrangements using accurate institutional and constitutional terminology. Use parliamentary sovereignty, codification, federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, conventions and judicial review only where it directly explains the objective. AO2 comparison: the UK constitution is uncodified and retains parliamentary sovereignty, whereas the US Constitution is codified, federal and based on a formal separation of powers. Explain why this matters because different constitutional rules alter institutional checks and accountability; do not write separate UK and USA descriptions. AO3 evaluation: test a structural explanation against rational and cultural viewpoints. Use an Act, convention, constitutional provision, ruling or institutional example, explain the limitation of each view and reach an overall judgement that follows from the evidence.

Linear qualification and papers: Identify Paper 3 as Political ideas, assessed by a two-hour written examination worth 77 marks and one third of the A-level.

AO1 focus: define constitutional arrangements using accurate institutional and constitutional terminology. Use parliamentary sovereignty, codification, federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, conventions and judicial review only where it directly explains the objective. AO2 comparison: the UK constitution is uncodified and retains parliamentary sovereignty, whereas the US Constitution is codified, federal and based on a formal separation of powers. Explain why this matters because different constitutional rules alter institutional checks and accountability; do not write separate UK and USA descriptions. AO3 evaluation: test a structural explanation against rational and cultural viewpoints. Use an Act, convention, constitutional provision, ruling or institutional example, explain the limitation of each view and reach an overall judgement that follows from the evidence.

Question types: Explain and analyse political institutions, processes, concepts, theories and issues in a structured 9-mark response using at least three substantiated points, appropriate political vocabulary and examples.

AO1 focus: define constitutional arrangements using accurate institutional and constitutional terminology. Use parliamentary sovereignty, codification, federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, conventions and judicial review only where it directly explains the objective. AO2 comparison: the UK constitution is uncodified and retains parliamentary sovereignty, whereas the US Constitution is codified, federal and based on a formal separation of powers. Explain why this matters because different constitutional rules alter institutional checks and accountability; do not write separate UK and USA descriptions. AO3 evaluation: test a structural explanation against rational and cultural viewpoints. Use an Act, convention, constitutional provision, ruling or institutional example, explain the limitation of each view and reach an overall judgement that follows from the evidence.

Question types: Comprehend and interpret arguments in political information for a 25-mark extract-based response, analysing and evaluating the arguments through a balanced and sustained line of reasoning leading to a reasoned conclusion.

AO1 focus: define constitutional arrangements using accurate institutional and constitutional terminology. Use parliamentary sovereignty, codification, federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, conventions and judicial review only where it directly explains the objective. AO2 comparison: the UK constitution is uncodified and retains parliamentary sovereignty, whereas the US Constitution is codified, federal and based on a formal separation of powers. Explain why this matters because different constitutional rules alter institutional checks and accountability; do not write separate UK and USA descriptions. AO3 evaluation: test a structural explanation against rational and cultural viewpoints. Use an Act, convention, constitutional provision, ruling or institutional example, explain the limitation of each view and reach an overall judgement that follows from the evidence.

Question types: Analyse and evaluate a political statement in a 25-mark essay through a structured and balanced argument, substantiated parallels, connections, similarities and differences, and a reasoned conclusion.

AO1 focus: define constitutional arrangements using accurate institutional and constitutional terminology. Use parliamentary sovereignty, codification, federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, conventions and judicial review only where it directly explains the objective. AO2 comparison: the UK constitution is uncodified and retains parliamentary sovereignty, whereas the US Constitution is codified, federal and based on a formal separation of powers. Explain why this matters because different constitutional rules alter institutional checks and accountability; do not write separate UK and USA descriptions. AO3 evaluation: test a structural explanation against rational and cultural viewpoints. Use an Act, convention, constitutional provision, ruling or institutional example, explain the limitation of each view and reach an overall judgement that follows from the evidence.

Question types: Make explicit comparisons between UK and US government and politics in the 25-mark comparative politics essay on Paper 2.

AO1 focus: define constitutional arrangements using accurate institutional and constitutional terminology. Use parliamentary sovereignty, codification, federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, conventions and judicial review only where it directly explains the objective. AO2 comparison: the UK constitution is uncodified and retains parliamentary sovereignty, whereas the US Constitution is codified, federal and based on a formal separation of powers. Explain why this matters because different constitutional rules alter institutional checks and accountability; do not write separate UK and USA descriptions. AO3 evaluation: test a structural explanation against rational and cultural viewpoints. Use an Act, convention, constitutional provision, ruling or institutional example, explain the limitation of each view and reach an overall judgement that follows from the evidence.

Final judgement check

This topic contains 8 approved learning objectives across 2 subtopics. A secure answer defines the political concept, compares the UK and USA explicitly, explains why the difference matters, tests competing viewpoints with evidence and reaches a justified conclusion.