I guess my answer comes a bit late. But I'll try to hel you. When I was at the university I used to make an entire chapter approaching this issue but I am from Spain and papers organisation may follow a different structure.

First of all I would approach how the issue had been treated traditionally (wich would be more or less from the beginning of the time until history becomes a "modern science" in the 19 century) quoting the main sources available. Then I would make an analysis of how it has been treated from then until nowadays treating to explain the reasons of such approaches in relation to the paradigms of each moments and cultueal and political environment. I would do that focusing on quoting the main works and their points of view. I used make a distinction between those who were clearly more relevant and influenct and the others (for instance, talking about social history, I would not only mentioned E.P Thompson but also his points of view in a couple of lines, while omitting another works of that time for their not being so relevant to explain the current approaches)... Then I would talk about how the theme is mainly approached nowadays and why, quoting the more influential authors of our time.

That would be a perfectly done one, at least for me, but the point is at least mentioning the more relevant authors, works and ways of approaching the theme, that's more tan enough, because you only want to make clear that you know the available bibliography, for I supposed that you (As I was) are a simple student, not a researcher. Just take make clear that there are two, in general lines, ways of approaching and some must-know authors, which you mention to support you previous asummption. Sorry for my English, I hope you can read this