Bustillos's thesis boils down to this: Harry Potter (aka the "chosen" one) was invited to Hogwarts and deemed "favorite" by Headmaster Albus Dumbledore because of his blood lineage and innate ability to combat the evil Voldemort. Potter is then allowed to break all the rules of Hogwarts, taught special magical defense skills and bestowed powerful gifts with which he learns to wield over a seven-book series (where he is, far from being an anti-establishment force, "slavishly obedient" to the all-powerful Dumbledore, in her view). This type of "chosenness," which results in Potter being naturally good at everything, reminds Bustillos of aristocratic snobbery that is all too common in English literature. She recommends Phillip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy as an example of more inventive, subversive fantasy.
Furthermore, The Awl contributor notes, the absence of any "effort or application" by "nobleman" Potter is compounded by the fact that his enemies are those who value blood purity (they are against the intermingling of humans and wizards). Even though Potter is dedicated to fighting these villains, he and his band of friends (excepting Hermione) are also a group of noblemen. "If the 'special' and 'chosen' and 'gifted' automatically receive all the honors there are, then what would be the point of working hard to achieve anything?" Bustillos asks.
Unsurprisingly, the idea of Harry Potter merely reinforcing an aristocratic ideal didn't rub well with one of the series' most "unwavering" fans: The New Yorker's Elizabeth Minkel. In a comment on Bustillos's essay, Minkel notes that she could write "a thousand embarrassing words" in response but instead she limits her arguing to one "serious qualm" with what The Atlantic Wire dubs the "Nobleman Potter" thesis: