IB Extended Essay: Annotated A-Grade Example + Structure

The IB extended essay is an in-depth study of a focused topic chosen from the list of available IBDP subjects. This is normally one of your six chosen subjects. It is intended to promote academic research and writing skills, providing you with an opportunity to engage in personal research in a topic of your choice!

It is presented as a formal piece of academic writing containing no more than 4,000 words, accompanied by a reflection form of no more than 500 words.

I scored a high A in my IB extended essay on English Language and Literature and this guide will focus on an extended essay for that subject.

To write a high-scoring English extended essay, you must very deeply analyse your works in the context of a broad issue, using supporting evidence and discourse outside of those works themselves.

There are 3 categories for an English extended essay:

1. Studies of one or more literary works originally written in the language in which the essay is presented.
2. Studies of a literary work or works originally written in the language of the essay compared with one or more literary works originally written in another language. (The work originally written in another language may be studied in translation.)
3. Studies in language based on one or more texts originally produced in the language in which the essay is presented

I chose category 2, comparing the play Hamlet by William Shakespeare and the novel The Stranger, originally written in French, by Albert Camus.

Below, I have annotated my extended essay so you can see what makes a high-scoring English EE!

This is going to be pretty long, so get ready. 

🌟 Annotated A-Grade Extended Essay Exemplar

Essay question

In what ways do Hamlet by William Shakespeare and The Stranger by Albert Camus explore the existentialist view of freedom?

Introduction

Hamlet by William Shakespeare and The Stranger (L'Étranger) by Albert Camus are seminal works that carefully examine the human response to external pressures, prompting profound enquiries into agency, meaning, and mortality across varying cultural and philosophical contexts. Hamlet, first performed in 1601, portrays the struggle of a noble prince burdened by external constraints, striving to find purpose in a world he cannot comprehend. The Stranger, published in 1943 and translated from French to English in 1988 by Matthew Ward, presents an ordinary man’s authentic confrontation with the absurdity of life rooted in his indifference to his surroundings. Whilst Hamlet arose from the contemplations of an English playwright who was then grieving the loss of his son, The Stranger grew from the tragic wars and misfortunes witnessed by a French philosopher. Despite differences in literary style and a three-century gap in publication, it is worthwhile to explore the thematic parallels between the two literary masterpieces with regard to existentialist values—specifically in domains of religion, rank, and gender—all of which were extremely pertinent within their respective historical contexts.

Hamlet and The Stranger’s protagonists, Prince Hamlet and Meursault, respectively, are linked by their experiences with choice, freedom, and the consequences of their actions. French existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre outlined the theme of existential freedom in a 1964 lecture titled ‘Existentialism is a Humanism’—that it is defined as the individual ability to make authentic choices and live wholly according to one’s own will, define their own meaning, and be liberated from external pressures. Although containing existentialist elements, the works of Shakespeare have been rarely compared to those of true philosophers in any detail, such as Albert Camus, who greatly contributed to the rise of absurdism, a philosophical theory that the universe is inherently irrational and meaningless. This essay hence not only highlights the timeless relevance of existentialism but also engages with a topic of minimal literature exploration, intending to study: in what ways do Hamlet by William Shakespeare and The Stranger by Albert Camus explore the existentialist view of freedom?

As both works enquire into how freedom can be achieved amidst the existence of external constraints, this essay intends to elucidate the universal nature of human existence in their quest for complete freedom of choice, entailing findings that will apply to all human beings. To investigate the question posed, by explicating Shakespeare and Camus’ tragedies through an existentialist lens, instances of Hamlet and Meursault that expose their reflections on their circumstances in the context of religious beliefs, social status, and gender roles—whether by their authentic selves or morphed by external forces—will be identified, and their emotions at such moments will be examined. Both works are regarded as literary classics, inspiring scholarly essays across different time periods and backgrounds, from renowned philosophers to emerging academics, thereby providing a diverse and extensive range of critical discourse on Shakespeare and Camus.

Religion and Faith

Religion often binds individuals to external moral codes, hence potentially curtailing their personal autonomy and ability to live authentically according to their own desires. It is also unsurprising that Hamlet is rich in biblical allusions—a natural consequence of Shakespeare’s exposure to the religious climate of the Elizabethan era.

Following Prince Hamlet’s encounter with the ghost who proposes that his uncle, the new King Claudius, was guilty for the murder of his father, the former King Hamlet, Hamlet is brought into deep despair. His first soliloquy presents a debate, weighing the merits of enduring life’s hardships against committing suicide: “Or that the Everlasting had not fix'd / His canon 'gainst self-slaughter!" (1.2.135-136). Shakespeare uses an epithet when referring to God as “the Everlasting,” emphasising his significance in Hamlet’s life whilst revealing an inner conflict between personal desire and religious obligation. Additionally, before the start of Hamlet’s soliloquy, Shakespeare effectively incorporates the stage direction “flourish,” which is defined as a “fanfare of horns or trumpets, usually accompanying an entrance or exit.” By adding sound, this dramatic gesture emphasises the severity of Hamlet’s yearning to escape his miserable existence after recognising that suicide is forbidden by divine law, overall illustrating how Christian doctrine limits his existential freedom. Hamlet becomes unable to make decisions aligned with his own will, seeing as his actions are no longer dictated by his authentic self but rather the religious responsibility he must uphold. Hamlet, albeit seriously considering committing suicide, rejects it due to his “fidelity to Christian doctrine,” proving that his thoughts and actions are determined by his Christian values, hence remaining bound to an unbearable life, trapped by the external framework of religion. It is unequivocal that his duty to Christianity prevents him from comprehending the liberation that existentialists, like Sartre, advocate for.

Another aspect of Hamlet’s life that is complicated by religious notions of purgatory is his act of revenge. As he hides in King Claudius’ bedroom, he witnesses Claudius in prayer and hesitates to murder him in fear that Claudius will “go to heaven; / And so am I revenged" (3.3.79-80). This biblical allusion is particularly striking, as Hamlet’s decision to spare Claudius not only demonstrates how his religion limits his ability to act authentically on his personal desire, thereby impeding his freedom, but also exposes the dramatic irony of his quest for justice, as audiences are made aware that Claudius’ prayer is insincere. This dramatic irony powerfully undermines the apparent moral high ground Hamlet assumes, revealing the limitations of his religiously governed judgement. His hesitation, though rooted in religious caution, ultimately contributes to the escalation of moral chaos in the play, thus while Hamlet appears to “operate within God’s will,” his reliance on religious reasoning may be more of a “psychological crutch” than a true noble compass. This moment therefore encapsulates how oppressive religious constraints not only undermine personal freedom, but may also have further external ramifications.

Through Hamlet, Shakespeare reveals to contemporary audiences the restrictions that religious frameworks place on one’s autonomy. The Stranger fully agrees with this statement, however it provides the reverse perspective of Meursault, who rejects religion. During Meursault’s interrogation for his act of murder, the examining magistrate asserted his belief that all men have faith in God. When Meursault’s atheism challenged the magistrate’s conviction, he questioned Meursault in desperation, asking “Do you want my life to be meaningless?” The use of a rhetorical question in dialogue exposes the existential anxiety that can arise when religious belief is challenged. This exposes how religion has made individuals overly reliant on it and thus struggle to authentically construct their own meaning, as a result, those restricted by religion will remain trapped within its boundaries, unable to be free. Emotive language also illustrates the fragility of a life built on external meaning, which links back to Hamlet, who finds himself relying on divine justice and Christian teachings as a basis for his thoughts and actions, remaining under constraint. This reveals that adopting an absurdist mindset like Meursault—being indifferent to external frameworks in life and fully focusing on himself—will allow one to achieve freedom. Nonetheless, it could also be argued that Meursault’s freedom comes at the cost of human isolation as his absurdism strips his life of meaning. One may understand that Hamlet’s reliance on Christian doctrine, though a constraint, also reflects a yearning for moral order and redemption, suggesting that external frameworks can offer psychological solace, which may be far more desirable than freedom.

Meursault then justifies his rejection of religion by stating he “had only a little time left and [he] didn’t want to waste it on God.” Camus’ use of literary realism conveys that Meursault’s acceptance of the absurd—that life has no inherent meaning and death is inevitable—allows him to live authentically, free from the constraints of seeking purpose from a higher power. Completely different from Hamlet who is resolute in his religion and facing inner turmoil, Meursault understands that life’s meaning is not derived externally, thus embraces his life in its present state. From his plain language, audiences perceive his tone as detached and unyielding, thus it is clear that Meursault’s liberation comes from accepting the simplicity of life as an absurdist. It is said that in “disrespecting” religious offerings, Meursault “respects” his privilege of free will. As contradictory to Hamlet whose actions revolve around Christianity and struggles to be at peace with his existence, Meursault asserts his existential freedom by rejecting religion therefore living authentically in his final moments. Though it cannot be guaranteed through Hamlet that Shakespeare critiques the existence of religion, both works agree that religion and existential freedom are opposites; religion provides law and purpose, acting as an external force that undermines individual meaning-making.

Status and Society

Existential freedom is grounded in the idea that human beings are fundamentally free to define their own existence. Jean-Paul Sartre famously states that “existence precedes essence,” meaning that individuals are not born with a predetermined purpose. Shakespeare finds this different for Hamlet, who is born as the prince of Denmark, carrying the weight of vengeance for his father and restoration of justice and honour in the nation. He reveals the burdens Hamlet faces as a nobleman and the existential struggle that arises from his forced acceptance of duty. He declares that “time is out of joint: O cursed spite, / That ever I was born to set it right!" (1.5.210-211). Diction in the term “born” demonstrates that his roles and responsibilities have been predetermined, leaving him little room to act according to free will. The metaphor of disjointed time with exclamatory language indicates that Hamlet’s role in Denmark is so monumental that it leaves him trapped within a preordained cycle, further highlighting the constraints on his agency. This ultimately results in an internal conflict between duty and desire, implying that Hamlet does not have the privilege of freedom. As expressed by German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, Hamlet feels that it is “ridiculous or humiliating that [he is] asked to set right a world that is out of joint” on the belief that within the larger framework, reality is predetermined and his actions have no power to change it.

This struggle against freedom is reinforced where a rhetorical question captures Hamlet’s frustration with his own inaction despite the expectation as a prince to avenge his father’s murder to maintain the honour of the royal family: "How stand I then, / That have a father kill’d, a mother stain’d" (4.4.59-60). The apostrophes and omission of auxiliary verbs focus readers’ attention to Hamlet’s lack of freedom to choose alternative responses that align with his personal conviction, but instead is burdened by the weight of noble obligations. This reflects a struggle to reconcile the demands of his nobility with his individuality. Hamlet’s subsequent claim that his “thoughts [must] be bloody, or be nothing worth!" (4.4.69). The metaphor of bloody thoughts, as well as Hamlet’s construction of a false dichotomy—violent revenge or worthlessness, implies a forced conformity to the fierce expectations of his role rather than a freely chosen path driven by genuine desire. This marks the surrender of his individual freedom to the deterministic forces of duty and honour. Through these moments, Shakespeare critiques the rigidity of social structures and portrays Hamlet as one whose noble status erodes his freedom instead of elevating it.

On the other hand, Meursault in The Stranger is a man of unremarkable background, clashing drastically with Hamlet’s nobility. As Meursault expresses no remorse after murdering a man, the prosecutor describes the “emptiness of [Meursault’s] heart” to be an “abyss threatening to swallow up society.” The personification of his heart denotes the depth of society’s discomfort with Meursault’s nonconformity. As a man lacking any elevated status, he feels no compulsion to abide by societal norms or seek approval from society, nurturing his indifference toward life and his surroundings. This detachment liberates rather than isolates him, allowing for authentic action as opposed to Hamlet, who wrestles with constraints rooted in attachment to expectations of his predetermined nobility. While Meursault’s ordinariness allows him to be at peace with his character, audiences may realise that Meursault becomes alienated and his existence becomes fleeting with the desolation of his heart.

Meursault also possesses no illusion of grandeur or desire for higher ambition. In Part 1, Chapter 5, he rejects a job opportunity in Paris, stating his belief that “in any case, one life was as good as another.” The use of literary minimalism underscores how his ordinary role as a modest clerk places him where societal pressures to pursue higher ambitions hold little significance. Incorporating irony to state that all life paths are to be equally “good”, Camus exemplifies that Meursault has no duty to justify himself against society and therefore has the freedom to act authentically. While Hamlet finds that his actions must be defined by his status, Meursault’s lack of extraordinariness grants him the freedom to live on his own terms without relying on external values, all in all embodying Sartre’s idea that true freedom comes from embracing existence as it is. French critic Rene Girard finds that this is because Meursault is “compelled to repay with indifference the indifference of society” who has “doomed [him] to mediocrity.” Meursault, as an ordinary man, can recognise that societal acceptance does not imbue life with meaning, amplifying his absurdist viewpoint and enabling him to achieve freedom, as opposed to Hamlet who finds purpose in living according to the pressures of his status. Whilst Shakespeare effectively portrays Hamlet to possess a capricious state of mind under societal expectations, Camus does not fail to showcase the emptiness of a free yet absurdist life. Both authors intelligently contrast the burden of purpose shaped by heavy expectations against the freedom of detachment that comes at the cost of meaning and desire.

Prince Hamlet is nobility and Meursault is ordinary, yet towards the end of both works, the protagonists reach a similar conclusion. Meursault, who is able to act upon his own desires, concludes before his execution that “the lives people choose” do not matter because ultimately all men are “elected by the same fate.” The blunt matter-of-fact tone emphasises the impartial and universal nature of death. In Meursault’s case, his ordinariness enables him to accept that all lives, regardless of their paths, culminate in the same fate of death, allowing him to achieve clarity with life and liberation from societal pressures. Although Hamlet grapples with expectations from his status, towards the end of the play, he questions the nature of existence by reminiscing about Alexander the Great’s fate, inquiring why “the noble dust of Alexander is found stopping a bung-hole?” (5.1.210-211). The oxymoron of “noble dust” diminishes the significance of earthly power, suggesting the futility of nobility and reinforcing that life is devoid of meaning. The metaphor for Alexander’s remains serving a mundane purpose highlights the extreme irony that, despite his royalty, Hamlet is subject to the same fate as the humblest of men. Just like Meursault, in Hamlet’s epiphany, he embraces the idea of rejecting the purpose dictated by his noble status to attain true freedom.

Meursault as a common man is unburdened by societal pressures of status, yet Hamlet’s actions are shaped by the obligations of his predetermined nobility. Nonetheless, in the end, the two protagonists communicate a similar notion: death serves as the ultimate equaliser, stripping life of any inherent meaning. Whilst one cannot verify whether Shakespeare intended to advocate the attainment of existential freedom, both authors convey that one may achieve such liberation in denying the roles externally forced upon oneself and recognising the transient nature of existence.

Feminine Influence

Whilst both male protagonists Prince Hamlet and Meursault possess strong relationships with women, however they provide differing responses to the women who play conventional roles in their lives, displaying how existential freedom can be attained in one but not the other. This section seeks to reveal the often overlooked connection between gender roles and freedom in Hamlet and The Stranger.

Following King Hamlet’s death, his wife Gertrude marries his brother less than two months after. Prince Hamlet is conflicted that the mother he loved is wed to his father’s murderer who he must take revenge against. He exclaims, “Frailty, thy name is woman!” (1.2.150), using an apostrophe to express his deep disillusionment with his mother whom he perceives as overly reliant on male structures for security, evidenced by her “wicked” and “incestuous” (1.2.161-162) remarriage his uncle within a preposterously short time frame. He critiques his mother’s extreme femininity that prioritises her need for male companionship, becoming torn between his filial duty to his mother and his desire to avenge his father. Consequently, his decision-making becomes paralysed, and he finds himself unable to act freely. Shakespeare powerfully conveys that Hamlet’s frustration with what he views as a female weakness from his mother impedes his ability to act decisively according to his own will. It is crucial to note that though Hamlet insults Gertrude, Shakespeare carefully uses a soliloquy where Gertrude has exited, instead of conversation, to serve as a direct communication channel between Hamlet and the audience, making them privy to thoughts he cannot share with other characters. This creates a sense of intimacy and empathy, allowing audiences to understand the depth of his anguish and isolation that ultimately reinforces his lack of freedom.

Ophelia, Hamlet’s fiancée and another key female figure in the play, submits to the demands of her father Polonius, a devoted advisor of King Claudius, who urges her to sever ties with Hamlet. Learning of Ophelia’s betrayal, Hamlet orders that she goes “to a nunnery. / Why wouldst thou be a breeder of sinners?” (3.1.131-132). The use of juxtaposition reflects his deep cynicism towards Ophelia, believing she is inherently unfaithful through her obedience to other male figures including her father. Hamlet, with conflicting feelings of Ophelia’s loyalty, reveals his desire to rid himself of Ophelia and the constraints she presents, as her compliance with Claudius’ regime leaves Hamlet utterly alone with further uncertainty in his quest for vengeance. Here, Shakespeare clearly makes known to audiences that Hamlet is distancing himself from a woman that exacerbates his paralysis and hinders his ability to act freely. Feeling confined in a world governed by gender roles, he yearns for the freedom to act without being influenced by a female role in his life. Pragati Das notes in this moment that the inconsistency and unreliability of both women in Hamlet’s life has manifested into bitterness against femininity. However, Das also argues that Gertrude’s decision to remarry so quickly after her husband’s death defies traditional feminine expectations to remain in a state of grief and devotion to the late King Hamlet. While it is reasonable to contend that Gertrude’s lack of mourning betrays feminine norms, it is equally important to consider that her hasty remarriage stems from her dependence on men. This creates a conflicted and ambiguous female identity for Gertrude, which further aggravates Hamlet’s frustration with the women around him.

The most crucial female figure in The Stranger, Marie, was a woman Meursault had an affair with shortly after his mother’s death. For him, Marie’s role is superficial. While she embraces life’s emotional connections, Meursault remains distant and dismisses these bonds as unimportant. In Chapter 5 of Part 1, Marie asks Meursault “if [he] wanted to marry her,” to which he replied that it “didn't make a difference to [him] and that [they] could if she wanted to do.” Camus’ straightforward tone and use of monosyllabic diction characterises Marie as a foil to Meursault, as expressing her desire to marry Meursault aligns with traditional feminine expectations of emotional depth, seeking meaning through relationships. Disagreeing nonchalantly with Marie’s outlook on relationships, Meursault does not feel the necessity to listen to her, unrestricted by her personal values. Whilst many contend that Meursault is mildly dependent on Marie as a female for companionship and thus he holds onto some existential constraint, the quoted conversation between the two rejects such a perspective and exemplifies Meursault’s authentic liberation from Marie evidenced by his indifference to their relationship. Despite their differences, both Ophelia and Marie display societal expectations of femininity: Ophelia is blindly obedient to her father and brother, Marie is emotionally invested in love and relationships. Hamlet was susceptible to Ophelia; although he was not deeply attached to her, her submissive nature becomes a constraint that weighs heavily and prevents him from being his true self. Conversely, Meursault remains unaffected by Marie's femininity, embracing a sense of liberation, prioritising his own authenticity. In this way, Shakespeare and Camus vividly present audiences with a dichotomy where Hamlet fails to achieve freedom whereas Meursault succeeds.

Nearing the end of the novel, Meursault, in his contemplation shortly before his execution, declared, “What did it matter that Marie now offered her lips to a new Meursault?” Marie is again used as a tool by Camus to emphasise Meursault’s indifference to romance. The “new Meursault” not only symbolises Marie’s feminine values that drive her to pursue other men with Meursault’s impending death, but also highlights the interchangeability of a woman’s partner as they are dependent on men. This is similar to Gertrude’s persona as portrayed by Shakespeare where she quickly remarries following the death of her late husband, enraging Hamlet who feels trapped by her need for relational validation. Marie is also a woman who feels the necessity to be amongst a man, however Meursault is different to Hamlet, not faltered by her actions and remains a man detached from women so as to act in accordance with his true self. Meursault’s indifference to Marie’s values or ideas of meaning-making through relationships allows him to accept a reality that aligns with Sartre’s view: humans must reject externally imposed meanings, and in that way they are free.

The existential freedom Meursault accomplishes by dismissing Marie stands in stark contrast to Hamlet, who is deeply affected by Ophelia and Gertrude’s character and struggles to take decisive action. However, one must acknowledge that Hamlet’s emotional entanglements underscore his capability for genuine connection—a quality that Meursault’s radical aloofness ultimately denies him. Nevertheless, the divergence between the two ultimately reinforces how freedom is not merely achieved by rejecting external expectations, but requires the emotional detachment that Hamlet fails to sustain.

Conclusion

In examining the ways in which the existentialist view of freedom is explored through Hamlet and The Stranger, this essay illuminates the divergent ways in which the protagonists, Prince Hamlet and Meursault, navigate their respective struggles with authenticity and the constraints imposed by their environments. Hamlet, burdened by religious doctrine, societal expectations, and emotional entanglements, embodies the tragedy of a man who struggles—and ultimately fails—to sustain authenticity and achieve freedom. In contrast, Meursault’s indifference to religion, status, and relational ties enables a radical form of existential freedom grounded in acceptance of life’s absurdity. However, while Meursault achieves autonomy, his emotional detachment also strips his existence of depth and purpose, presenting freedom not as triumph but as isolation. This comparative analysis hence demonstrates that existential freedom is not merely the rejection of constraints but the ability to confront the profound cost of doing so. More importantly, it highlights that freedom, while theoretically desirable, demands a reckoning with meaninglessness—a challenge that Hamlet resists and Meursault embraces, albeit at the price of emotional impoverishment. To Meursault, who has never considered surrendering himself to external forces, the profundity of finding meaning in one’s existence will always remain unknown to him. Only by confronting it can he comprehend the implications of a life without existential freedom.

By exploring universal themes of religion, societal status, and feminine personas, it becomes evident in both works, despite cultural and philosophical differences, that existential freedom is not a collective experience but rather a deeply personal and context-dependent journey morphed by extraneous aspects of life that either restrict or enable an individual to attain such liberation.

The structure of my essay (IB English Language and Literature category 2) looked like this:

1. Introduction
   1. Tell the reader what to expect in the essay
   2. Make clear to he reader the focus of the essay, the scope of the research, in particular an indication of the sources to be used, and an insight into the line of argument to be taken
2. Section 1
   1. Analysis of first work
   2. Analysis of second work, with comparisons to the first work
3. Section 2
   1. Analysis of first work
   2. Analysis of second work, with comparisons to the first work
4. Section 3
   1. Analysis of first work
   2. Analysis of second work, with comparisons to the first work
5. Conclusion
   1. What has been achieved, including notes of any limitations and any questions that have not been resolved

🚀 Want to Know If Your Essay Is A High Scoring Response?

Extra Resources

How to Get 10/10 in the TOK Exhibition | Your Ultimate TOK Exhibition Guide

In this IB TOK guide, we will unpack everything you need to achieve a Grade A in your TOK Exhibition. Gain insights into what markers are looking for and how to approach prompts designed around the marking criteria.

KIS Academics BlogManoj Arachige

High Scoring IB Extended Essay Guide | How to Choose a EE Topic

Discover the best IB Extended Essay (EE) topics. Get subject-specific examples, fresh ideas, and practical tips on how to choose the perfect EE topic for you.

KIS Academics BlogManoj Arachige

FAQs

Want more personalised guidance to help support you through your studies? Find a KIS Academics tutor today!

What Our Students & Parents Say

600+ Five-Star reviews across all our tutoring programs — hear why below !👇

Written by KIS Academics Tutor for IB English Language and Literature (HL/SL), Kaylee. Kaylee also tutors IB Mathematics Analysis and Approaches (HL/SL) and IB Business Management (HL/SL). She is currently pursuing a Bachelor of Commerce/Laws at USYD and has received stellar reviews from her past KIS Academics students. You can view Kaylee’s profile here and request her as a tutor.