Although the poem is written in the first person perspective (Leda as "she" and the swan as "he" when referenced by pronoun), Yeats seems to switch in his sympathies between Leda and the swan, sometimes favoring one above the other and vice versa. At the outset of the poem, the images of Leda's violent rape, though disturbing and seemingly offensive to women and feminists, are meant to garner sympathy for Leda and for women as a whole. Her pain is to be shared by the reader in the most literal way possible, and Yeats accomplished this with such disturbing language. Even if the reader does not or cannot sympathize with Leda and her situation, she at least may be pitied in her "helplessness".
However, the second stanza proposes two rhetorical questions that seem in direct opposition to Leda's predicament, favoring the swan-Zeus instead. Yeats is incredulous as to why Leda would not welcome the swan's endearments, especially given Zeus's "glory" and human-like "heart" (see Analysis: Bodily Fragmentation). Such phrases raise the swan with praise to a new level higher in esteem than Leda's position as the pitiable victim.
In the last half of the poem Yeats takes on a more reflective tone that is more analytical of the Leda myth, the characters of Leda and the swan, and himself. He states the outcome of this forced copulation, which culminates in the birth of Helen of Troy and the Trojan War (see Contexts: Leda and the Swan in Greek Mythology). Yeats poses a third question which is not rhetorical like its predecessors, addressed equally to himself and to the reader, forcing an introspective analysis of one's own beliefs and sympathies. The language used within this question, like the rest of the poem, is problematic and skews any set position we may have as to Yeats' own position on the matter, and this is because that is simply not the point. The reader must make up their own mind about who is deserving of power or sympathy, pity or control (see Analysis: Intent? for a more in depth analysis of these topics). It is shift in moral perspective, but not necessarily point of view, that makes this possible.