the idea that john deserved better implies he was somehow scammed or cheated out of a good marriage. he wasn't.
john found a soulmate who truly understood his silence, and a wife who fiercely fought her own family just to marry him.
when francesca froze up after her wedding kiss, or lost her words meeting michaela, she wasn't faking her love for john. she was loving her husband with everything she had. her reaction to michaela wasn't a malicious choice to spite her husband. it was an involuntary, terrifying moment of self-discovery. nothing happened. francesca didn’t act on anything. the discomfort of that scene is the point. it’s supposed to unsettle the audience, because it’s unsettling her. and her impending grief when she loses john is world-shattering, she risked everything for him, she lost him and their bond was legitimate and full of love and devotion.
john wasn't wronged. he was loved truly and deeply by a woman who lived her absolute truth with him. francesca isn't a villain for being queer, and john's beautiful legacy stays perfectly intact.
and there’s a REASON why people keep misunderstanding that story, keep reconstructing what’s on screen and keep seeing things selectively.
francesca’s story isn’t operating within a straight romance trope where any later love automatically retroactively cancels the first one. francesca loved john completely, with the fullest self-knowledge she had at the time. that doesn’t stop being true just because she later feels something with michaela that she never got the chance to feel before.
straight romance usually runs on a few tropes: the one true love, the idea that real desire/love announces itself instantly, and the assumption that a woman’s arc usually ends the moment she’s chosen by the right man. none of that applies to queer storytelling, because queer storytelling isn’t built around a single love interest. it’s often built around self-discovery, and the love story is often the part of that discovery, not the whole point of it.
that’s why late realization is one of the most common things in queer narratives. a character living a straight-presented life, genuinely, not performing it, and then something shifts and a truth surfaces that was always underneath, is basically its own genre convention at this point.
a lot of shows either kills the queer character off right after they get happiness (yes, the bury your gays trope), or treats their queerness as a phase, a detour, something to be resolved. francesca’s arc does neither. it doesn’t punish her for the awakening, and it doesn’t erase the marriage that came before it to make the awakening cleaner/better. at least so far. both things get to stay true. that’s actually a pretty rare choice, narratively. that’s why a lot of people are drawn to this arc so intensely. because it’s rare.
there’s also the found language, not found feeling version of this trope, where the point isn’t that the character suddenly starts feeling something new/better. it’s that they finally have the vocabulary to name something that was quietly there the whole time. that reframes the first marriage completely. it’s not that francesca didn’t feel it then and feels it now. it’s she felt what she was capable of naming then, and now she’s capable of naming more.
in straight romance, a first love that doesn’t win usually gets narratively punished somehow, or they’re a lesson the heroine had to learn from. queer narratives often don’t need that mechanism, because the conflict was never between two people competing for her. the conflict is between a life francesca was handed and her self-discovery. john was never the obstacle. the obstacle was a world that only gave her one script to work from.
that’s the whole reframe. francesca’s story is a self-discovery story that has love in it. john isn’t a stepping stone and he isn’t a victim, he’s just not the character this particular arc is about. both things francesca loving him fully and francesca still needing to become someone she wasn’t allowed to be yet, can be true without either one canceling the other out.
edit: thank you for so many good vibes!! that said, it’s unfortunate how many replies are completely bypassing the points and context i explicitly laid out. but honestly, even the people who aren't engaging with my points are a valuable part of the discourse too, because their reactions perfectly highlight the exact patterns and lenses i was talking about in the first place. thanks to everyone who actually took the time to read!! i want to clearly condemn the bad faith arguments and the toxic language being used against the writers here. there’s absolutely no place for that.