Does Dee have a right to the quilts? This could be your argument. Then you would have to prove whether or not Dee has a right to the quilts.
Is the mother wrong in giving them all to Maggie. Would you argue that Dee should get some of the quilts? If so, why. Why does Dee deserve some of the quilts? Dee is a daughter and the oldest. She is an heir to her mother's properties. She would use them to adorn her house. She would not wear them out. She would take pride in the heirloom. Dee is interested in the quilts. Dee did ask for the quilts. She grew up in the same house as Maggie. She is entitled to half of everything her mother has. (These are suggestions)
Does Maggie have a right to all of the quilts? This could be your argument. Why does Maggie deserve all of the quilts. Perhaps Dee would not appreciate them the way Maggie would. Dee is egocentric. She cares only about herself. She would never use the quilts. Maggie would. After all, the story is about everyday use. The mother desires for the quilts to be used. She also sympathizes with Maggie since she was burned severely. Also, Maggie is more dependent on her mother. Dee can make it own her on without the quilts:
Near the end of the story, Mrs. Johnson demonstrates a shift in her maternal sympathies by taking the quilts from Dee and giving them to Maggie, signaling for the reader where the author's own sympathies also lie.
No doubt, the mother, Mrs. Johnson, sympathizes with Maggie. Mrs. Johnson desires for Maggie to have the quilts. Mrs. Johnson realizes that Dee has denied her own heritage. Dee only wants to showcase the quilts as folk art. She would never use them for everyday use:
Dee denies her real heritage, in which she was named for her aunt. Dee's other attempts to appreciate her cultural heritage miss the mark: she wants to display her mother's possessions in her home as examples of folk art but refuses to recognize their greater value to her mother and sister as objects of "everyday use" that they still use.