You pick one or two normative ethical theories - they will have a judgement on whether lying is wrong (Kant - always wrong, Util and Virtue ethics - sometimes wrong) and then just bring in the standard issues/criticisms from the spec to criticise the normative ethical theorie(s). If you end up evaluating a theory to be correct, then it's judgement on whether lying is wrong would be your conclusion. If you can make the issues slightly relevant to lying, such as in illustrations, that would be ideal. For example, the issue for Kant regarding the value of consequences- you could use the illustration of the murderer at the door to challenge his view that lying is always wrong.
You can actually even include meta-ethics too - anti-realist theories would argue that there is no right or wrong, which means the proposition 'lying is wrong' cannot be true or false. Meta-ethics is hard though.