Yes, there is evidence to suggest that <PERSON> was influenced by revolution, the pace of technological change and debates over racial equality. (It's also a book about parenthood.)
As has been helpfully pointed out - the revolution in context of the book is the French Revolution:
If “Frankenstein” is a referendum on the French Revolution, as some critics have read it, <PERSON> politics align nicely with those of <PERSON>, who described violent revolution as “a species of political monster, which has always ended by devouring those who have produced it.” The creature’s own politics, though, align not with <PERSON>’s but with those of two of <PERSON>’s keenest adversaries, <PERSON> and <PERSON>. <PERSON> has made use of other men’s bodies, like a lord over the peasantry or a king over his subjects, in just the way that <PERSON> denounced when he described feudalism as a “ferocious monster.” (“How dare you sport thus with life?” the creature asks his maker.) The creature, born innocent, has been treated so terribly that he has become a villain, in just the way that <PERSON> predicted. “People are rendered ferocious by misery,” she wrote, “and misanthropy is ever the offspring of discontent.” (“Make me happy,” the creature begs <PERSON>, to no avail.)
We can see that this is about the pace (or rather the horrors and regret) of technological change:
“Frankenstein,” the story of a creature who has no name, has for two hundred years been made to mean just about anything. Most lately, it has been taken as a cautionary tale for Silicon Valley technologists, an interpretation that derives less from the 1818 novel than from later stage and film versions, especially the 1931 film, and that took its modern form in the aftermath of Hiroshima. In that spirit, M.I.T. Press has just published an edition of the original text “annotated for scientists, engineers, and creators of all kinds,” and prepared by the leaders of the Frankenstein Bicentennial Project, at Arizona State University, with funding from the National Science Foundation; they offer the book as a catechism for designers of robots and inventors of artificial intelligences. “Remorse extinguished every hope,” <PERSON> says, in Volume II, Chapter 1, by which time the creature has begun murdering everyone <PERSON> loves. “I had been the author of unalterable evils; and I lived in daily fear, lest the monster whom I had created should perpetrate some new wickedness.” The M.I.T. edition appends, here, a footnote: “The remorse <PERSON> expresses is reminiscent of <PERSON> sentiments when he witnessed the unspeakable power of the atomic bomb. 124
. . . Scientists’ responsibility must be engaged before their creations are unleashed.”
We can see the book is about racial equality:
Among the many moral and political ambiguities of <PERSON>’s novel is the question of whether <PERSON> is to be blamed for creating the monster—usurping the power of God, and of women—or for failing to love, care for, and educate him. The <PERSON>-is-<PERSON> model considers only the former, which makes for a weak reading of the novel. Much of “Frankenstein” participates in the debate over abolition, as several critics have astutely observed, and the revolution on which the novel most plainly turns is not the one in France but the one in Haiti. For abolitionists in England, the Haitian revolution, along with continued slave rebellions in Jamaica and other West Indian sugar islands, raised deeper and harder questions about liberty and equality than the revolution in France had, since they involved an inquiry into the idea of racial difference. <PERSON> and <PERSON> had been abolitionists, as were both <PERSON> and <PERSON>, who, for instance, refused to eat sugar because of how it was produced. Although Britain and the United States enacted laws abolishing the importation of slaves in 1807, the debate over slavery in Britain’s territories continued through the decision in favor of emancipation, in 1833. Both <PERSON> closely followed this debate, and in the years before and during the composition of “Frankenstein” they together read several books about Africa and the West Indies. <PERSON> was among those abolitionists who urged not immediate but gradual emancipation, fearing that the enslaved, so long and so violently oppressed, and denied education, would, if unconditionally freed, seek a vengeance of blood. 124