
Abuse is an at-fault matter but it has to be demonstrated in court, which makes it more challenging for persons in tightly controlled/financially abusive marriages to prove. Proving fault often requires legal resources an abused person might not have, but no-fault allows them to break things off more cheaply and easily, thus offering a form of protection through increased individual agency
Hypothetically yes but the state is notoriously unreliable at providing free counsel. They generally underfund and overwork any sort of Public Defender/counsel office to the point some are now refusing to take on more workload and are being held in contempt of court. I think they same thing would happen if the state were obligated to provide free counsel in divorce cases too