PLEASE HELP ME!

How did the British parliament limit the role of the monarch and what were the benefits and drawbacks of these limits?

This must conclude a topic and conclusion sentence. There also must be three pieces of evidence and reasoning.

The photo attached is the rubric

The English Bill of Rights is an act that the Parliament of England passed on December 16, 1689. The Bill limits the power of the monarchy by creating a separation of powers, therefore enhancing and protecting the rights of citizens.

How did the Bill of Rights legally change the political system in England? It introduced a constitutional monarchy. ... It gave monarchs the right to veto laws. It guaranteed the right to religious equality.

Explanation: Hope this helped:)

the reform movements that arose during the antebellum period in america focused on specific issues: temperance, abolishing imprisonment for debt, pacifism, antislavery, abolishing capital punishment, amelioration of prison conditions (with prison's purpose reconceived as rehabilitation rather than punishment), the humane treatment of animals, the humane and just treatment of native americans, the establishment of public institutions for the care of the destitute, orphans, blind, and mentally ill, the establishment of public schools, the abolition of tobacco use, vegetarianism, health reform, homeopathic medicine, woman's rights (including, at first, especially the establishment of a woman's right to own property apart from her husband and her right to sue for divorce), and the amelioration of labor conditions (including higher pay, the right to form unions, the right to strike, and the demand for limits on the number of work hours, and safe working conditions).

explanation:

since most of current immigration into the u.s., both legal and illegal, is coming from latin america. it would be very difficult to imagine or rationalize a country my fellow citizens are trying desperately to flee into, would pose a threat to my prosperity or freedom. since the u.s. has a long history of intervention, but no record of permanent occupation, i would not feel oppression is the main objective.  

the largest free trade nation, along with the largest gdp in the world wanting to expand it's economic policy on us, and including us, could only be positive. the u.s. government has no interest in, or way of simply forcing american culture on us. and has no track record of it. other nations that adopted american social culture, or "americanization" did so voluntarily, mainly through the choice of allowing american businesses and u.s. citizens to come into their nations, as free operatives.