Students from different socioeconomic backgrounds exhibit persistent gaps in test scores, gaps that can translate into unequal educational and labor-market outcomes later in life. In many assessments, performance reflects not only what students know, but also how effectively they can communicate that knowledge. This distinction is especially salient in writing assessments, where scores jointly reward the substance of students' ideas and the way those ideas are expressed. As a result, observed score gaps may conflate differences in underlying content with differences in expressive skill. A central question, therefore, is how much of the socioeconomic-status (SES) gap in scores is driven by differences in what students say versus how they say it. We study this question using a large corpus of persuasive essays written by U.S. middle- and high-school students. We introduce a new measurement strategy that separates content from style by leveraging large language models to generate multiple stylistic variants of each essay. These rewrites preserve the underlying arguments while systematically altering surface expression, creating a "generated panel" that introduces controlled within-essay variation in style. This approach allows us to decompose SES gaps in writing scores into contributions from content and style. We find an SES gap of 0.67 points on a 1-6 scale. Approximately 69% of the gap is attributable to differences in essay content quality, Style differences account for 26% of the gap, and differences in evaluation standards across SES groups account for the remaining 5%. These patterns seems stable across demographic subgroups and writing tasks. More broadly, our approach shows how large language models can be used to generate controlled variation in observational data, enabling researchers to isolate and quantify the contributions of otherwise entangled factors.