Your first sentence is highly improbably, and frankly, not backed by empirical evidence. From there, you develop a free-will thesis, and then ask questions about "view" (biologically, that has no meaning).
Your questions presuppose free-will. Religious and political conservatives like that argument, as it then presupposes a natural order (gender preference, mother-child bonding, et al) to base a system of laws and norms.
But how does that explain pedophiles? or homosexuality? or irrational behaviour (as in antisocial)?
Philosophers have for ages argued "free-will" and the basis of rational thought, whatever that is. Books have been written on it.
So here, you presuppose free-will, and variants depending on a persons "alignment" with "control" theory. That presupposes not only free-will, but something controlling free-will. Hmmm.
You have an interesting topic, but beware of the potholes. Often we generate concepts which make us feel good, and powerful, however have no basis in empirical evidence. I would like to read your thoughts on this.
Here is a short essay on free-will that may stimulate your thinking of how the free will is actually "controlled".
Good luck, it sounds interesting.
These articles might help:
We are all influenced by hereditary and environmental factors. Is it actual control that people have over their lives — or is it merely their perception of control?
I hope this helps a little more. Thanks for asking.