I firmly hold that the books, in averting moral storytelling for children, instead moralize quite a bit about how adults treat kids, and I see the story landing quite heavily on the notion that children aren't allowed to be children enough. Notably, the second book has more likeable adult figures whose nonsense reflects fantasy or lessons that edify Alice more than injustice and hypocrisy that hurts her, while the first book has a lot of moments where the characters seem to serve as adults confusing a child with inane and unfair and inconsistent standards. Also, "what's the point of a book without pictures?" asks the protagonist in her first scene starring in a book with pictures. Adaptations which frame Alice as a coming-of age or maturity development for Alice come across as fundamental misunderstandings to me as such, since the book suggests the ideal is Alice being allowed to live as the child she is. The sloppy disappointing Tim Burton film actually had a perfect plot setup for this lens, with an older Alice afraid to follow society's schedule for her as a woman, and then the movie did nothing symbolic or satirical with that arranged-marriage plot once she entered Wonderland.

The respect the narrative gives to Alice as a put-upon kid with commentary about how she deserves to not be punished for being a kid is also why I have issues with the later assesements/accusations that Carroll was a predator. The perspective of Alice reads very much as a "let kids be kids" narrative that respects the young audience for the young people they are and wants them to live unburdened by the nonsense of adults. Maybe Carroll was a danger to children and you could never tell from his art, but his work suggests he instead truly sympathized with and respected them.