Honestly, I find the marriage contract trope in the HP fandom relies so heavily on bashing to function that it's almost a required component, and Weasley bashing is its most common fuel. The contract premise needs Harry to reject his canonical found family, so the Weasleys—especially Molly, Ron, and Ginny—get painted with this broad, greedy brush. Molly becomes a gold-digging matriarch pushing Ginny at him with love potions, Ron a lazy, jealous traitor, and Ginny a vapid fangirl. It’s a shortcut to morally justify Harry’s shift to Daphne and the ‘neutral’ pureblood world.
That justification always feels flimsy to me, though. The bashing isn’t subtle character critique; it’s caricature. It serves to absolve Harry of any guilt for abandoning his friends and aligns the reader with his new, supposedly superior, alliance. The Greengrass family, often depicted as coolly pragmatic and politically savvy, shines brighter only because the Weasleys are smeared with such a thick, ugly tar. It makes the whole political maneuvering of the contract story feel unearned, built on a foundation of strawmen instead of genuine ideological conflict.
I still read them sometimes for the Daphne & Harry dynamic, but I skim the Ron-betrayal subplots. They’re all the same.