I think the answer you're looking for involves historiography: how to approach a topic or event in history. Mswizzle23 had a good recommendation with Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France to get an understanding of the events, but before reading anything I always have to get in the right mindset. Humans write history, which is problematic because people have inherent biases, whether recognized or not. Primary documents are especially prone to having a heavy slant and needed to be treated as such.

I had a professor who worked as a lumberjack under the Soviet Union. His working group had a requirement for so many logs under a set period, but the requirement was beyond what his company was capable of! Official documents stated that all the logs the Soviet Plan wanted were cut and sent down the river to the mill, but they must have gotten stuck in the river because the amount that reached the mill was below their quota. Now, reading the document one could see that the river must be hard to log in since so many weren't making it to the mill; but looking at what the writer was trying to sell, one can make the argument that they lied about filling the quota so they wouldn't get punished, (I forget which 5 year plan he was under so I'm not sure how severe punishment would be) which I think is perfectly understandable. It is important to consider what the author might gain from this story being believed, where they were, and the pressures he or she were under.

I found a decent list of reasons and ways to dissect sources here. Using this type of inquiry will help provide a better understanding of the forces in play in the French Revolution or any other historical event. Good luck!

I would probably first look at what conservatism is exactly and what it entails and then I would go through various sources, see what the contemporaries of the day thought of the revolution, how it took place, what were the goals and ideas and try to fit the pieces together in a cohesive argument, the more sources the better. I'm honestly really rusty on the French Revolution but wasn't it more a liberal movement, it was very sudden and radical, I ask this because someone who would be a conservative would reject the idealism of the revolution, how people cannot be morally changed social and political movements/change and how the government became the master so to speak. So are you saying, as a result OF the revolution rose the preference of conservatism? I think that's what you're saying, right?

I would say you have a ton of material you can look through though, like Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France. I think you might find it quite helpful. But, make sure to look at other contemporaries and enlightenment thinkers like Hobbes, Rousseau and Locke, I think seeing the contrasts and differences in their ideas will be important as well in formulating your argument.