When writing a paper there are two things that you might want to achieve but, regrettably, in practice, they might be incompatible.
One thing you might reasonably want to achieve is to make your paper easy for your intended audience to read. A good way of doing that is to stick to a structure that your audience all know (even if they might not love it). The structure you describe certainly achieves that for an academic audience.
The other thing you might, with equal reasonableness, want to achieve is that the main messages of your paper should be rapidly understood. That wish would lead you to an entirely different structure: a title that foreshadows the conclusions, an abstract that summarises them, then the conclusions followed by detailed argument and finally methods, detail, and literature review (probably in an appendix).
During my career I have written many papers with one or the other of these purposes. What is the key to deciding which approach to take? If you want to show an academic audience how clever you are, then you probably have to go with the standard approach you have outlined. If, on the other hand you are writing for busy people who primarily want to know what you propose and secondarily, if interested enough, why, then you need to go for the sort of structure I have outlined.
I think there is a kind of middle way. Even with the traditional, and to my mind laborious, structure of an academic paper, you can still tell a story. Nothing engages a reader better than a story. So what you have to do is to see that your intended story is there all the way through. The danger comes if you see the headings in your list as separate sections that could be written in isolation from each other. That is a particular risk if you pay too much attention to the often repeated advice to doctoral researchers that you should start writing as early as possible in your research. Write when you are clear in your own mind what story you wish to tell.
Unless your paper comprises only the facts about your topic, but includes every single one of them (which I believe to be an impossibility) you cannot write a paper without selecting what you wish to include and therefore what you have to exclude. Your opinion inevitably enters into your choice. What you must avoid is expressing your opinion as if it were a fact, or claiming that your supposed facts comprise everything that is to be known about the subject.