The pairing system presumes, at least in some sense, that the ratings of players are THE indicator of their playing strength. So, think about it: if you were playing in a tournment with players rated 1000 to 2000 - and your strength was 2000 - you would get to play weaker players (by rating) if your posted rating were only 1200 versus the 2000 playing strength. However, even if you won all the games your were expected to win by your playing strength, your tie-breaks would be worse for winning the overall prize, I believe, having played on average a weaker field.
The place where this advantage come in is for class prizes. Here, having a rating that is very non-reflective of your strength - in the correct direction - is a very strong advantage for winning the class prize. Organizations like the USCF try to prevent this from being a significant factor in two ways: a) providing ratings floors below which a player's rating cannot fall after achieving some higher rating, and b) limiting the prize-winning possibilities for unrated (and to some extent lower rated) players.
[This is not a question about tournaments here on chess.com -- just a general one about Swiss system tournaments.] I know the basics of the Swiss pairing system, but I also have a question: does the Swiss system show any bias in favor of higher-rated or lower-rated players? In other words, would two players of different ratings but the same strength have different chances of winning the event, given their different pairings?