Socioscientific (SSI)-based instruction has gained popularity in science education research as the number of controversial topics has increased daily. This study has two objectives: first, it aims to explore the quality of arguments made by pre-service science teachers (PSTs) through various SSI contexts. Second, it explores whether the context influences participants' argument quality. For these purposes, a case study was designed with 13 senior (fourth grade) PSTs enrolling in a state university in Türkiye. Data were collected through participants' reports. The results revealed that participants mostly articulated arguments along with supporting evidence (including backing, warrant, or grounds) without considering different perspectives (i.e., counter-arguments) and refuting evidence (i.e., rebuttal) in various SSI contexts. In terms of the SSI context, genetically modified organisms and artificial meat consumption contexts were the ones where participants were able to generate more arguments compared to other SSI contexts. Recommendations for teacher education programs in terms of enhancing the quality of arguments and the role of various SSI contexts in improving participants' argumentation processes were provided.