Edexcel A Level Politics (9PL0) Past Papers 2026

UK Politics

Duration: 2h

UK Government

Duration: 2h

Comparative Politics — USA

Duration: 2h

Comparative Politics — Global Politics

Duration: 2h

Party political funding — legislation, short money, and state funding distinctions

Candidates struggled to identify specific regulations on party funding. 'Weak responses struggled to provide specific examples to illustrate their points and when they did, it was usually out of date examples. These types of responses also lacked knowledge on the existence of rules and regulations on funding of political parties.' Many candidates were unaware of Short Money, Cranbourne Money, Policy Development Grants, and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendum Act 2000/2009.

Paper 1

The precise distinction between parliamentary sovereignty and judicial review of executive actions

A common area for confusion was the role of the Supreme Court and the Human Rights Act in relation to parliamentary sovereignty. 'It was also the case that court rulings — sometimes used as examples to show that parliament had lost sovereignty to the Courts, such as the Miller rulings — are, in fact, rulings that upheld parliamentary sovereignty.' Confusion also arose between declarations of incompatibility and judicial review of executive actions/policies.

Paper 2

Comparative theories (rational/structural/cultural) — correct application to Q02

A major differentiator in Paper 3 results. 'Weaker responses tended to lose AO2 marks by describing federalism, then describing devolution, without drawing comparisons between the two.' Comparative theories were either absent (capping marks at Level 3), applied to the wrong question, or only named without explanation. 'This type of response would remain in Level 3.'

Paper 3A, Paper 3B

US checks and balances — common factual misconceptions

A sizeable number of factual errors recurred: 'that Roe v Wade made abortion illegal; citing Supreme Court cases on state issues as examples of legislative/executive checks; that impeachment succeeded (seen in relation to Nixon, Clinton and Trump); that Trump's travel ban was ruled unconstitutional; that the Senate has a veto'. These errors directly damaged AO1 marks and undermined the AO2 analysis built upon them.

Paper 3A

Neoliberalism, Hobbes, and non-specification thinkers incorrectly cited in Liberalism answers

A considerable number of candidates 'included Rand and Nozick as they were discussing neoliberalism as a part of the answer. Centres should be advised that neoliberalism is not part of the liberalism specification and so no credit was given for this. Hobbes view of state was also discussed here, once again, centres should be reminded that while Hobbes is associated with Social Contract theory, he is a Key Thinker in the Conservatism specification.'

Paper 1

The 'extent' dimension in political ideas questions — measuring degree rather than asserting binary positions

This was the single most consistent weakness in ideas answers across both papers. 'Candidates needed to come to a judgement of whether fear of the state within liberalism was greater than the lack of fear. This was not seen in 95% of responses. Instead candidates made binary judgements.' The same issue was noted in Anarchism, Ecologism, Feminism, Multiculturalism, and Nationalism questions in Paper 2.

Paper 1, Paper 2

Distinction between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy in the specification

Candidates 'continue to refer to socialist strands which are not mentioned in the specification, specifically Democratic Socialism, which is sometimes discussed to the exclusion of Social Democracy. Centres should ensure candidates do not focus on this strand, as discussion and comparison of this strand is not creditable.' Also, terminology confusion: 'candidates use a wide array of terms for socialists e.g. Traditional, Revisionist, Fundamentalist, Utopian.'

Paper 1

US Supreme Court — independent judiciary vs political body distinction requires nuanced analysis

The most common failure on this essay question was 'a simplistic political/judicial response' or responses that 'weav[ed] an excellent argument around the politicisation of the Supreme Court, whilst completely neglecting the other side of the argument'. There were also 'significant numbers of responses that were based on incorrect assumptions about the ideology of justices appointed' — e.g. assuming Republican-appointed justices always make conservative decisions.

Paper 3A