In his comment, OP Ryan says
Thanks for the reply, I have a poor understanding of unions but your
response definitely helps!
To promote understanding and intuition, here is a more wordy/elaborate description of what is happening. We look at
$\tag 1 B\subseteq C \Rightarrow A\cup B \subseteq A\cup C$
as a way of modifying both $B$ and $C$. In a rigorous treatment you can't say things like 'a new $B$'.
We start with
$\tag 2 B \subseteq C$
and want to find a relationship between $A\cup B$ and $A\cup C$. But the union operation is how we 'add stuff into a set'. So, anything that gets added to both the left hand side $B$ and right hand side $C$ of (2) would not change the subset relationship relationship, since it would be 'added' to both sides.
In what follows we breakdown how each element of $A$ gets added to $B$ and $C$.
If $A$ is a subset of $B$, nothing changes using the union operation,
$\tag 3 A \subseteq B \,\land\, B\subseteq C \;\Rightarrow A\cup B = B \,\land\, A\cup C = C$
To show that (3) is true you need to show that $A$ is also a subset of $C$.
So how do you add 'new stuff'? One way is if $B$ is a proper subset of $C$, we can take an element $c$ that is in $C$ but not in $B$, and then
$\tag 4 \{c\} \cup B \subseteq \{c\} \cup C = C$
So when we add this kind of new stuff, nothing happens to $C$ but the 'new' $B$ 'looks more like' $C$.
The last thing to consider is adding new stuff that does not appear in $C$ (and then it also can't be in $B$). So if $k$ is a completely new object, we can throw that in also, and
$\tag 5 \{k\} \cup B \subseteq \{k\} \cup C$
In this case we changed both $B$ and $C$ by adding in a new element.
In summary, if you look at (1) in a dynamic way, then as you "pour" $A$ in,
(a) $B$ and $C$ don't change
(b) $B$ grows larger but remains a subset of $C$
(c) Both $B$ and $C$ grow larger in the same way
(d) A mixture of (a), (b), and (c)