The photographs for which this question is most appropriate are all her self-portraits. Showing her photos of people in the streets of Chicago is one thing, but her self-portraits are another.
It seems the act of photographing was as important, if not more, than the prints themselves, and certainly more than showing the photos to others. She wasn't living in the middle of nowhere. She knew photography, she knew about photography. She knew she could send her photographs to different magazines — there were tons of amateur photo mags in these days — and hope to have one or the other published. She didn't. Why? Was photography such a private act for her? Was is mostly, essentially, about the act of photographing?
If so, we can wonder how she would have felt about seeing all these self-portraits. About how they make her look (egomaniacal? self-centered? playful? wondering who she is and how she fits in this world?). Maybe she would have loved them. Maybe she would feel immensely embarrassed.
To say that we shouldn't see these isn't the right answer. To say that she's dead, and a great photographer, so who cares about how she might have felt isn't either.
Complicated questions, they are, as Yoda used to say...
