I believe there is a historical precedence for societal extremes of all kinds, for example Puritanism was a reaction to perceived hedonism in society and lead to a regime where pretty much anything related to pleasure was demonised and eventually legislated against, then the power structure changed and a more happy medium was achieved.
Currently the attempt is to get away from the "stiff upper lip" mentality, which meant that people suffering from genuine abuse and injustice were encouraged to suck it up and not make waves for people not experiencing those things and without any understanding of them, or those who may have that shared experience but harbour subconscious resentment of anyone receiving support, however scant, and feel unfairly treated themselves - the "I'm alright Jack so you should be too" mentality if you will.
In our modern world every perceived slight and injustice must be addressed and there is money to be made in them thar hills - markets have to grow so new things have to be "invented" to keep people engaged. Alot of money and research is invested in identifying things that will push people's buttons and encourage them to reach out, which is often at a price, and offers tribalism in a more and more divided and fragmented society.
Also look at the fact that parenting has been turned into a far more involved pursuit than it used to be. This is mainly due to the absolutely necessary drive to educate people out of abusive parenting being hijacked, again by experts and also by market forces. There is no greater driver for obsessive parenting than "official" or "officially backed" forces opining that if you don't micro manage your child's life in every area, you are condemning them to a life of failure, for which you can and will be roundly blamed. Blame and shame are massive tools in the box of "nudge" policies, even if not specifically articulated.
So, people who may have been perfectly good organic parents and not abusive, can conflate what used to be considered trivial or passing issues with actual abusive behaviour. We may not all be slaves to these influences, but their sublety is vastly under-estimated I think.
Add in the knowledge that such a category of risk is now included in The Childrens Act, ie "risk of future emotional harm" which can be variously interpreted according to the popular zeitgeist, which may result in official intervention, and of course bringing up the next generation becomes rather fraughtPeople who have coped and muddled along reasonably well may feel that isn't good enough for their children, as does society, so they have to address their issues too. It can be a toxic cocktail leading to what is being addressed here as failure of personal responsibility to get things right - all the time.
There is a fine line to be trod here - the balance between pathologising normal human response for the greater good of society influenced by marketing opportunities, versus going back to "shut up and don't be a nuisance" when people are trying to carry on and improve.
Hopefully, in time, a happy medium will be achieved.