[5] The play focuses on the prosperous upper-middle-class Birling family,[6] who live in a comfortable home in the fictional town of Brumley, "an industrial city in the north Midlands.

Long considered part of the repertory of classic drawing-room theatre, the play has also been hailed as a scathing criticism of the hypocrisies of Victorian and Edwardian English society and as an expression of Priestley's socialist political principles.

Arthur Birling, a wealthy factory owner, magistrate and local politician, celebrates his daughter Sheila's engagement to Gerald Croft, son of a rival magnate.

The evening is interrupted when the maid Edna announces the arrival of a man calling himself Inspector Goole, who explains that earlier that day he had seen the dead body of a young woman named Eva Smith, who had died by drinking disinfectant.

Gerald is noticeably startled and admits to having met a woman of that name in the Palace Bar, where Smith had resorted to prostitution to sustain herself.

Seeing that Smith was hungry and struggling to cope financially, and was out of place there, Gerald gave her money and arranged for her to move temporarily into a vacant flat belonging to one of his friends.

Goole plays his final card, forcing Sybil to lay the blame on the "drunken young man" who had got Smith pregnant.

It slowly dawns on the rest of the family, except Sybil, that Eric is the young man in question, and "Mrs. Birling" was the first name that had come to Smith's mind because he had fathered her child.

Eric enters, and after brief questioning from Goole, breaks down and admits responsibility for the pregnancy: he had forced himself on Smith after a drinking spree at the Palace Bar.

The Inspector reminds the family that actions have consequences and that all people are intertwined in one society, stating: "if men will not learn that lesson, then they will be taught it in fire and blood and anguish."

Many critics and audiences have interpreted Goole's role as that of an "avenging angel" because of his supernatural omniscience and his final warning, and because of his name, which is a homophone of the word "ghoul".

It is suggested in the final scene that a real investigation will follow Goole's, and his purpose has been to warn the family in advance and encourage them to accept responsibility for their wrongdoing.

He represents the ruling capitalist class, repeatedly describing himself with pride as a "hard-headed businessman", and is arguably the main subject of Priestley's social critique.

He remains unaffected by the suicide, and his concerns appear to be the avoidance of public scandal, the recovery of the money Eric stole from the company, and the resumption of Sheila and Gerald's engagement, which promises to effect a Croft–Birling merger (which looks likely to bring about a monopoly).

Arthur Birling is used by Priestley as a dramatic vehicle to criticise capitalism, the arrogance of the wealthy middle class, and the ignorance of the older generation.

As the leader of a charitable organisation, she assumes a social and moral superiority over Inspector Goole, whose questioning style she frequently describes as "impertinent" and "offensive".

Sheila begins as a naive and self-centred young woman, but becomes the most sympathetic member of the group over the course of the play, revealing insecurity about her appearance, showing remorse for her part in Eva's downfall, and encouraging her family to do the same.

The revelation of Gerald's affair with Eva puts an end to the engagement, though Sheila commends him for his truthfulness and for his initial compassion towards Smith.

Highly successful after its first and subsequent London productions, the play is now considered one of Priestley's greatest works, and it has been the subject of a variety of critical interpretations.

It has been read as a parable about the destruction of Victorian social values and the disintegration of pre-World War I English society, and Goole's final speech has been interpreted variously as a quasi-Christian vision of hell and judgement and as a socialist manifesto.

The romantic idea of gentlemanly chivalry towards "fallen women" is also debunked as being based on male lust and sexual exploitation of the weak by the powerful.

[21][22] It won the Drama Desk Award for Outstanding Revival of a Play, and was widely praised for making the work involving and politically relevant for a modern audience.

The success of the production since 1992 has led to a critical reappraisal of Priestley as a politically engaged playwright who offered a sustained critique of the hypocrisy of English society.