Tolkien: and then the Good King came and cast out the Evil Stewards who were corrupt because they ruled without the correct bloodline. Everything was peaceful after that and there was no more evil. There are two women in this story. Monarchy is good. The actual singular God who created everything wants you to be ruled by a 300 year old nobleman. The End.
GRRM: Feudalism is inherently destructive. Even the Noble Good Guys cause unimaginable suffering due to the structures of the system they operate within. Women are no more than brood mares under Feudalism. There is a Good King whose father was deposed. This Good King has spent his life living amongst the common people in order to become a good ruler. He is being manipulated by cynical actors and will bring devastation to the world when he begins his conquest. Thirty years ago the Hero of Prophecy acted to save the world from the Great Evil. He unleashed devastation on the land, died, and destroyed his own dynasty, possibly dooming the world. There are no gods, only powerful forces beyond our understanding that operate through the power of blood. Once upon a time there was a Good King who ruled justly. He brought peace to the land and improved the common folks' lot tremendously. Due the nature of Feudalism, the succession crisis that succeeded his reign led to the most bloodshed in 300 years. No one who wants war understands its cost.
People who dislike things because they're popular: Wow these are exactly the same!
I would personally make the case that if you want to critique a real-world subject like feudalism, liberalism, fascism, communism etc, then it should be grounded in real-world historical examples of its effects and why you're making a case for or against it. An allegorical work, or even a more grounded one set in a world that is total fiction and has no basis for having a feudalistic system other than the author's fancy is not as valid as one explaining why feudalism worked in the early to late middle ages, why it eroded away or was overthrown and what historical influences led to its demise, to be replaced by liberalism. Fiction tends to leave too many things open to interpretation, so if it's not clearly in favour of one real-world ideological basis in favor of another, you get brain-dead takes like "uhhh yeah Hunger Games is actually about fighting communism" or Squid Game, or anything else. In other words, you could make a work of historical fiction, be as accurate as you like with the details, condemn feudalism in the text as subtly or overtly as one wishes, and champion the cause of liberalism in a setting where it makes historical and dialectical sense to do so.
Maybe I'm too literal, but I simply assume all fiction is inherently reactionary or not well-thought through enough to tell the difference. Helps me sift out the bullshit by just keeping the guard up.
Well on that note I don't think I've ever read a work of fiction that's actually dialectical, let alone one that models itself after something historical.
Maybe The Expanse is the closest?