Netflix’s Monster: The Lizzie Borden Story blends a notorious 19th-century murder case with a fictionalised relationship between Lizzie Borden and her maid, Bridget Sullivan. That creative choice has prompted debate about historical accuracy, queer representation and whose stories get told. Here’s what viewers should know before treating the drama as a history lesson.
A notorious murder case, with a fictionalised romance
The real Lizzie Borden was tried and acquitted in 1893 after her father and stepmother were killed in Fall River, Massachusetts. Netflix’s dramatised retelling takes creative liberties, including portraying a romantic relationship between Borden and Sullivan, her family’s maid. Coverage by Capital FM and The PinkNews discusses the queer storyline and its place in the series. [3], [4]
That distinction matters: a plot can give a character a compelling new dimension without establishing that the events happened. TheWrap and Boston.com both approach the series through the gap between the historical record and the show’s dramatic interpretation. [5], [6]
Why the show’s queer storyline has sparked debate
The romance has also become part of a wider argument about representation. A UC San Diego student, Gitanjali Boyd, criticised what she sees as the limited visibility of queer people from diverse backgrounds in contemporary media, and connected that concern to the series. [2]
The underlying question is bigger than one Netflix drama: who gets centred when queer stories reach a mainstream audience? More varied casting and storytelling can open doors, but representation can still feel narrow if it leaves some communities at the edges. [2], [4]
Historical drama isn’t the same as history
Netflix’s official Tudum coverage explains the series’ ending, offering viewers the show’s own account of its characters and plot. That’s useful for following the drama, but it shouldn’t be confused with evidence about what Borden and Sullivan did in real life. [7]
For viewers keen on the facts, it helps to separate three things: documented events, disputed interpretations and invented scenes. The Boston.com and TheWrap explainers provide context for the historical case and the show’s storytelling choices. [5], [6]
How to watch with a clearer eye
Start with the series as a dramatic interpretation, not a documentary. If a relationship or event feels striking, check whether reputable historical coverage supports it before repeating it as fact. Netflix’s own ending explainer can clarify the programme’s narrative, while independent reporting adds useful distance. [5], [6], [7]
And it’s worth asking two questions at once: does the creative choice make for engaging television, and whose experiences might it represent or overlook? A thoughtful answer doesn’t have to dismiss the story or accept every detail as history. [2], [4]
The real story and the screen story can coexist
The debate around Monster shows how historical fiction can prompt conversations well beyond its plot, from queer visibility to accuracy. Viewers can enjoy the drama while keeping a firm line between what the series imagines and what the record supports. [2], [5], [7]
Watch for the storytelling, but keep the history in view.
Source Reference Map
Story idea inspired by: [1]
Sources by paragraph: