The subject and the sequence are different questions
The Gottman Institute distinguishes a complaint about a specific behavior from criticism directed at a person's character. Its conflict guidance also discusses responsibility, respect and taking a break when overwhelmed. These ideas focus attention on how a disagreement proceeds, not only on who has the better argument.
That distinction is a starting point, not a conclusion about your relationship. Reading a description of conflict does not establish that both people hold equal power or equal responsibility for harmful behavior.
Background sources [1]
Bring one moment, not a case against each other
For a private therapy conversation, you could choose a recent, ordinary disagreement. What was the initial question? What did you hear it as meaning? What did you say next? Where did the discussion shift away from the original issue? This is an illustrative preparation idea, not an instruction to confront a partner or replay an unsafe interaction together.
For example, a conversation about making plans might become a dispute about whether either person is considered. Instead of assuming that is your pattern, ask the therapist to help you examine what actually happened. You can describe your own experience while leaving room for information you do not yet understand.
Name what you hope would happen differently
Try turning a broad goal such as fewer arguments into a question for the clinician: How could we discuss one issue without bringing in every unresolved disagreement? Or: What would make a pause feel like a returnable break rather than an abandoned conversation? Your therapist can help decide whether joint work is appropriate before offering a plan.
Do not use a communication label as a verdict about your partner. The point of bringing an example is to create a clearer conversation about help, accountability and safety. You are not required to agree on every detail before seeking individual guidance about your situation.