Let $p:Y \to X$ be a proper, surjective map between smooth connected complex varieties $Y,X$, esp. $X$ unibranch. Assume that there exist a Zariski open (esp. dense) $U \subset X$ over which every fibre $p^{-1}(x)$ is connected (resp. irreducible).

Then there is a topological version of Zariski's connectedness thm. (see eg 5.6 U5, in Algebraic Geometry II by Mumford & Oda, or 3.24 in Mumford's AG I: Complex projective varieties) that assures that then every fibre of $p$ (so not only over $U$) is connected.

The argument uses interplay of Zariski topology with complex analytic topology of induced map $p(\Bbb C): X(\Bbb C) \to Y(\Bbb C)$. Let's stick on fibres over closed points only, so focus on fibres of $p(\Bbb C)$.
The map $p(\Bbb C)$ is topologically/ differential geometrically a proper, smooth surjective submersion (...presumably there are pathological case with $p$ surjective, but not submersion; lets exclude these) as we can treat complex manifolds $Y(\Bbb C), X(\Bbb C)$ as smooth manifolds.

What I'm wondering about, cannot we by density of $\Bbb C$-valued points reduce the statements about connectedness & irreducibility of the fibres reduce to analogous statements about fibres wrt $p(\Bbb C)$?

And then argue via Ehresmann Lemma? For proof see, eg Prop 6.2.2, Complex Geometry, Huybrechts. This requires so clarification as Ehresmann works in differential geometric setting, and says that such map as above is locally a trivial fibration.
Attention, this requires clarification: As these local trivializations are given not complex analytically, but differential geometrically, ie there exist open $V \subset X(\Bbb C)$ (wrt smooth topol) such that $(p(\Bbb C))^{-1}(V)$ is diffeomorphic to $(p(\Bbb C))^{-1}(x) \times V$. Note, that this completely forgets about complex structure of the maps.

But we get as important consequence that this implies especially that all fibres $(p(\Bbb C))^{-1}(x) $ are diffeomorphic, and so homeomorphic, esp the topological features like connectedness and irreducibility are preserved in all fibres.

This raises Two Questions:

(1): Does this reasoning give a correct proof of above quoted Zariski connectedness thm? (of course only in complex setting)
Note, that ZCT is about connectedness in Zariski topoloy, but the argument presented above as about complex analytic topology of the fibres of $p(\Bbb C)$ which are in turn dense in fibres of $p$. But that seems not to be an big issue, as Zariski-connectedness and complex analytic topology are equivalent; compare with remarks after proof of above qouted (3.24) in Mumfords CPV.

(2): The issue with irreducibility of fibres in light of the Ehresmann lemma appears to be spooky. A top. space is irreducible iff a dense subset of it is irreducible.
So again the irreducibiliy of fibres of $p$ is then equivalent to irreducibility of fibres of $p(\Bbb C)$ beeing dense in them. But here we should be careful, with topologies, as wrt analytic topology such a fibre is almost never irreducible.
But we can simply impose Zariski topology of each fibre $(p(\Bbb C))^{-1}(x) $ as topology induced by subsets $(p(\Bbb C))^{-1}(x) \cap U$ where $U \subset X$ Zariski open, since as sets we have inclusion $X(\Bbb C) \subset X$. Note that Zariski topology is subtopology of analytic topology.

So the question becomes if the homeos between fibers $(p(\Bbb C))^{-1}(x)$ with resp analytic topology induce continous (neccess bijective) maps wr Zariski topology. If yes, this would imply that if there exist a Zariski open $U \subset X$ over which every fibre $p^{-1}(x)$ is irreducible, then every fibre of $p$ is irreducible.

But this appears wrong; there are families where general irreducible fibers degenerate to reducible fibres. But then, what is wrong with my reasoning; especially application of Ehresmann lemma?