
It's actually rlly strange the way some authors write it. Like everyone has a different way of using the theme which can confuse readers but they usually put stuff like an explanation at the beginning for most of them. Anyways, the main way authors write it is that omegas - even males - get pregnant a lot more easily and they're the only ones who can produce alphas. There are some variations where alpha x alpha couples can also produce alpha children and a few where even betas are able to (albeit rarely) but omegas are always bottoms because of their "ability" to produce more easily and the fact that when they're in heat, they're kind of unable to do anything except beg for sex ( ̄∇ ̄") again, I don't have anything against it, it's just that it's bizzare to call it omegaverse when they're ignoring the whole reason omegas bottom - they're looked down on as inferior breeders

I think they're trying to "break the standards" of a/b/o. Honestly, if every a/b/o fit the same mold, it'd be very boring and the trope will never mature if these other aspects are never explored.
Also, saying "the point of omegaverse is that omegas can get pregnant. . ." is kind of like saying "women have sex to get pregnant, so it's weird if they're penetrating" (I know that's not what you're intending but it's kind of like that haha, at least from my view).

I guess I worded that kind of wrong but like the main conflict is usually that they're inferior because they're bottom, therefor, if you take the fact that the omega is the bottom out, why are they inferior? Im bit saying being bottom is inferior but it's considered that which was why I thought it threw off the omegaverse theme.
Is the omega rlly the top? Cuz the whole point of omegaverse is that omegas can get pregnant. I've got nothing against the omega topping but it just kinda throws the whole omegaverse theme lopsided imo