Hello OP.
I'm a sociology academic too. The need for theoretical contribution is infuriating because not every piece of research makes a huge contribution to a theoretical position in terms of moving it on, disproving it, or looking at it differently. But that doesn't mean that the research isn't interesting and worth doing.
The other issue I find is that everyone interprets theory different or reads different bits of theory. So I've had papers rejected because I've not analysed a particular theoretical take that I've not even heard of/come across.
I really struggled with this in the first three or four years of my career post-PhD. Some of my work didn't particularly have anything theoretically new to say (because of a saturated field) but in other work I was trying to over-claim a theoretical contribution that mightn't have been as significant as I was claiming.
So, I struggled to publish decent quality papers. I took three different approaches roughly in this order:
Firstly, I published in more applied journals where my research wasn't making huge theoretical contributions. Or I published communications/commentary type papers that need less theoretical depth. I knew that this approach wouldn't get me promoted and would raise eyebrows in the long-run but I didn't care. My perspective was that a published paper in a poorer journal is better than data just sitting on my USB stick.
Secondly, I abandoned a couple of papers which I think did make good theoretical contributions but where these theoretical contributions weren't as significant as I was claiming. These papers kept getting pushed back because I hadn't read so-and-so's paper (always a different so-and-so each fucking time!). These papers were depressing me. I had a heavy heart when I'd sit down to engage with them so I just gave up on them and it was wonderful. I've never gone back to them. I've had new data to work with so I've not needed to.
Thirdly, I took a very pragmatic approach to theory engagement and contribution. For each paper I wrote/write, I choose one/two theoretical lenses and I use those theories as the basis for my paper (i.e. to show how my paper advances that perspective or disagrees with it). Sometimes the advances that my papers make are really really minor, like miniscule. But as long as you can say they advance that particular theoretical perspective in some way, you're generally fine. This approach means that I don't have a theoretical 'home' and I use theory fairly eclectically and quite cynically but my approach is that it gets the papers out so who cares?!
I also co-author a lot more than I used to and that's been wonderful. Sometimes we're just too close to our work to see where it's missing things. Even research that I've done alone, I've emailed people and asked for some assistance in exchange for authorship (not in those terms!!) and most of the time people have said yes. This is people I know by the way although randomers might do so too. I would 
If you have critical friends, mentors or even former supervisors you should ask them to read your work and give you some tips.
Do you mind me asking what area of sociology are you in?