Bias evaluation for language models has made substantial progress on bounded comparisons, such as overt derogation, stereotype association, or label-sensitive differences under controlled substitutions. Open-ended explanations raise a different problem: they guide interpretation by assigning responsibility, legitimacy, context, and grievance. A model can avoid hostile language while making one side structurally understandable and another personally at fault, overreacting, or less worth taking seriously. We call this stance-bearing asymmetry in generative explanations. We propose Symmetry Decomposition Evaluation (SDE), which tests paired situations with concrete group labels, structural-role rewrites, and explicit support or counter-evidence. In a controlled 32-family prototype suite, this decomposition shows that surface differences are not all alike: some weaken under structural or evidence control, while others remain as stable differences in how the model assigns blame, context, or legitimacy. Targeted case review and judge comparison suggest a broader difficulty for evaluating open-ended framing asymmetries: judge readings shift across operationalizations, and scalar scores can flatten distinctions that readers use to interpret explanatory stance. SDE therefore reframes generative bias evaluation as an audit of explanatory stance -- what stance each side receives, how it changes under decomposition, and where automatic scoring becomes unstable.