The critically acclaimed Hulu series The Handmaid’s Tale concluded its run, leaving audiences to grapple with the fates of its complex characters.

However, the poignant and dramatically ironic conclusion for Serena Joy Waterford, a character who journeyed from architect of Gilead’s oppressive regime to a conflicted figure seeking refuge, was almost drastically different.

Series creator Bruce Miller initially envisioned a much bleaker fate for Serena, a revelation that underscores the careful considerations that shaped The Handmaid’s Tale ending.

A Darker Path Considered: The Original Plan for Serena

In the series finale, viewers saw Serena Joy (Yvonne Strahovski), stripped of her power and influence, heading towards a refugee camp, a stark contrast to her former status.

This ending provided a sense of schadenfreude for some, watching a key figure of the patriarchy reduced to the very status she helped impose on others, while also leaving a sliver of possibility for future redemption. Yet, this nuanced conclusion wasn’t the first idea on the table.

Bruce Miller, the showrunner and creative force behind the adaptation of Margaret Atwood’s seminal novel, confessed in post-finale interviews that he seriously contemplated killing Serena Joy off early in the final season. His initial concept for The Handmaid’s Tale ending involved Serena being pushed from a refugee train, meeting an anonymous demise on the side of the road alongside her infant son, Noah. Miller drew parallels to historical figures, comparing Serena to Eva Braun and Noah to Hitler’s child, suggesting a swift, harsh judgment.

“I wanted to kill her,” Miller stated bluntly. “Because I think she was such a horrible person and being dead on the side of the road completely anonymously… would have been a fitting end. I had to be convinced not to throw her off that train, along with the kid.”

This proposed end highlights the intense debate likely surrounding Serena’s character arc within the writers’ room. The desire for retribution against a character responsible for immense suffering is palpable in Miller’s initial thoughts on The Handmaid’s Tale ending.

Why the Brutal Ending Was Scrapped

The decision to pivot away from Serena’s death stemmed from several factors, including input from series star and frequent director Elisabeth Moss (June Osborne).

Moss expressed hesitation about the abruptness and finality of killing Serena, particularly after the character’s complex journey in the preceding seasons. “In my heart, I really wanted to see her survive,” Moss shared, admitting her role as “Serena’s biggest fan” despite the character’s villainy. She felt both Serena and her son deserved to live.

Beyond personal preference, killing Serena, especially in the manner initially conceived, presented narrative problems. It risked repeating the storyline of her husband, Commander Fred Waterford, who was killed by vengeful former Handmaids. Such a demise for Serena might have felt redundant. Furthermore, it would have arguably negated the significance of Serena’s tentative redemption arc explored in season 5. While never fully absolved, Serena had shown flickers of change and remorse, making a sudden, brutal death feel like an unsatisfying narrative shortcut for The Handmaid’s Tale ending.

Killing baby Noah alongside Serena would have introduced an even more problematic element, potentially conflicting with the series’ broader themes about hope and the fight for the future, often symbolized by children. While exploring the dangers of mob justice could be a theme, it might have clashed with the show’s generally positive portrayal of revolutionary actions against Gilead’s tyranny.

The Resonance of the Chosen ‘The Handmaid’s Tale Ending’

The final version of The Handmaid’s Tale ending for Serena Joy offers a more complex and arguably more fitting conclusion. Instead of a quick death, Serena is forced to confront the consequences of her actions in a profoundly personal way. She receives a form of forgiveness, or at least understanding, from June, her long-time adversary and victim.

This interaction allows for a moment of profound character development, even if Serena herself, as Miller notes, “is never going to admit that she did wrong.”

Her fate – becoming a refugee, stripped of status and power – is steeped in dramatic irony.

She embodies the very vulnerability and desperation she once imposed on others. This ending allows audiences the satisfaction of seeing her fall from grace while simultaneously acknowledging the possibility, however remote, of genuine change.

She must live with her guilt, a punishment perhaps more potent than death. Miller elaborated, “You can see how holding onto the illusion that she did right is getting very, very difficult.”

This internal struggle provides a richer, more thought-provoking conclusion than a simple demise.

Ultimately, Serena’s survival allows for a more nuanced exploration of justice, accountability, and the potential for change, even for those who have committed monstrous acts.

It avoids easy answers, forcing both the characters and the audience to grapple with the messy reality of rebuilding lives and societies after immense trauma.

The Handmaid’s Tale ending delivered a powerful, albeit controversial, final statement on one of television’s most compelling and complicated antagonists, proving that sometimes, living with the consequences is the most profound fate of all.

The careful deliberation behind Serena’s fate highlights the intricate process of concluding a story as impactful and culturally significant as The Handmaid’s Tale, ensuring The Handmaid’s Tale ending resonated with its complex themes.