I’ve argued with a couple of people over this and agreed with a couple, so let me make my position clear:
In the finale the writers try to make it clear that we’re supposed to sympathize with a murderer who arranged a hit on an innocent woman, got out of jail on the condition that she betray her fiancee, managed to not fulfill either her obligations to the law OR her fiancee, steal ten million dollars, and chose to get knocked up by a psychopathic criminal, who predictably ended up in jail, leaving her to raise the kid on her own.
And we’re supposed to sympathize with her mostly for that last one.
So, on the record: I didn’t buy it, and I think it’s a shame the writers tried to make us buy it.
BUT – there is one major saving grace here (spoilers for those who care):
The very end hinges on the main character of Raylan ultimately deciding not to turn her in. While I think he should have, I think it’s important to note that Raylan’s decision not to turn her in was entirely within character.
This is an extraordinarily important distinction. It is the difference between watching a character you know and love suddenly acting completely differently in order to make a social justice point, and a character making a decision you don’t agree with but that the character would naturally make.
One is forced, and is bad writing. The other is good writing, because you are having your main character make choices that fit what we know of his personality. From how we saw Raylan’s character develop and from the way he treated Ava it made perfect sense for him not to turn her in; in fact, I’d have had a harder time believing it if he had.
The flaw was not in Raylan’s actions, but that the writers were clearly expecting the audience to agree with them. However, this is a MUCH more minor flaw, and I will go on the record stating that I do not think it mars the finale to any major extent.