Sadly I can't give a particularly thorough answer to this question. Specifically, I can't say to what extent Aquinas's views are representative of the middle ages, nor provide a serious account of how the reception of his views changed. However, there are a few quick and unsystematic points that I can make regarding Aquinas views, hopefully clarifying and complicating them somewhat, and then noting how they are still received by the Catholic Church to some extent today.

In the first place, certainly Aquinas viewed women as, in general, inferior to men as in ST 1.92.1: "But man is yet further ordered to a still nobler vital action, and that is intellectual operation." Similarly in his commentary on 1 Cor 11:1-3:

The second comparison he presents is of man to man, when he says: The head of a woman is her husband. This is verified according to the four comparisons mentioned above. For, first of all, man is more perfect than woman not only in regard to the body, because, as the Philosopher says in the book On Generation of Animals, “the female is an occasioned male,” but also in regard to the soul’s vigor, as it says in Ec (7:29): “One man among a thousand I found, but a woman among all these I have not found.” Secondly, because man is naturally superior to the female, as it says in Eph (5:22): “Wives, be subject to your husband as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife.” Thirdly, because the man exerts an influence by governing the wife, as it says in Gen (3:16): “Your desire will be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” Fourthly, the man and the woman are alike in nature, as it says in Gen (2:18): “I will make him a helper like to him."

However, equally, Aquinas doesn't seem to take this as some unqualified condemnation of the intellectual abilities of women. Indeed, he equally admits that many particular women can be more intelligent and accomplished than many men. This comes out notably in his arguments against female ordination (Super Sententiis 4.d25.q2.a1.qc1) when he must respond to the argument that: (Please excuse my quick and probably dodgy translations, I have included the latin should anyone like to point out mistakes I may have made.)

Furthermore, the power of ordination is founded on the mind. But sex is not in the mind. Therefore the diversity of sexes does not make a distinction in the reception of ordination.

Praeterea, ordinum potestas in anima fundatur. Sed sexus non est in anima. Ergo diversitas sexuum non facit distinctionem in receptione ordinum.

Now, were his views here uncomplicated we might suppose his response to be that women just are inferior so no problem, however he seems to qualify his response:

[1] Certain things are required in the reception of the sacrament as it were with regard to the necessity of the sacrament, which if they should be lacking, it is not possible for someone to receive either the sacrament nor the substance of the sacrament; [2] indeed certain [other] things are required non with regard to the necessity of the sacrament, but regarding the necessity preaching on account of congruence with the sacrament; and without such someone receives the sacrament but not the substance of the sacrament. Saying therefore, that the male sex is required for receiving ordination not only for the second [2] but also the first [1].

Whence although all things which occur in ordinations are exhibited by woman, she may not receive ordination: because since a sacrament is a sign, in these things which are conducted in the sacrament, not only the substance is required, but also the signification of the substance [...]. Since therefore in the female sex such an eminent grade is not able to be signified, because the woman has the status of subjugation; thence she is not able to receive the sacrament of ordination.

quaedam requiruntur in recipiente sacramentum quasi de necessitate sacramenti, quae si desint, non potest aliquis suscipere neque sacramentum neque rem sacramenti; quaedam vero requiruntur non de necessitate sacramenti, sed de necessitate praecepti propter congruitatem ad sacramentum; et sine talibus aliquis suscipit sacramentum, sed non rem sacramenti. Dicendum ergo, quod sexus virilis requiritur ad susceptionem ordinis non solum secundo modo, sed etiam primo.

Unde etsi mulieri exhibeantur omnia quae in ordinibus fiunt, ordinem non suscipit: quia cum sacramentum sit signum, in his quae in sacramento aguntur, requiritur non solum res, sed significatio rei [...]. Cum ergo in sexu femineo non possit significari aliqua eminentia gradus, quia mulier statum subjectionis habet; ideo non potest ordinis sacramentum suscipere.

Now this is certainly a relatively complicated and obscure bit of scholastic philosophy, so if someone would like to step in and give a better reading in context I would welcome that. However, in general, we can note that though Aquinas wishes to affirm that being a man is required both for the manifestation of the sacrament and its efficacy, he distances himself from the position that this is because of some biological deficiency on the part of women. Instead focusing on the providential role of women within humanity, that of being subject to man. Indeed he continues that:

To the first therefore saying that prophecy is not a sacrament, but a gift of God; whence signification is not required there, but only substance. And because according to substance, which in these are minds, woman does not differ from man, since sometimes a woman is found to be better how much according to mind than many men; thence the gift of prophecy and others of this sort can be accepted, but not the sacrament of ordination.

Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod prophetia non est sacramentum, sed donum Dei; unde non exigitur ibi significatio, sed solum res. Et quia secundum rem, in his quae sunt animae, mulier non differt a viro, cum quandoque mulier inveniatur melior quantum ad animam multis viris; ideo donum prophetiae et alia hujusmodi potest accipere, sed non ordinis sacramentum.

So there is an importance sense in which Aquinas does not wish to take a strong position on the inability of woman vis-a-vis men on a biological level. Rather, his position seems to relate more broadly to the providential roles of men and women within God's plan, according to which men hold a particular and predominant position over women.

Secondly, it should be noted that the Catholic church still to some extent supports a view like this. For example, in what is still the generally held to be the authoritative statement on the matter, Inter insigniores, Aquinas's commentary on the sentences (which I have translated above) is cited:

The Christian priesthood is therefore of a sacramental nature: the priest is a sign, the supernatural effectiveness of which comes from the ordination received, but a sign that must be perceptible^18 and which the faithful must be able to recognise with ease. The whole sacramental economy is in fact based upon natural signs, on symbols imprinted on the human psychology: “Sacramental signs,” says Saint Thomas, “represent what they signify by natural resemblance.”^19 The same natural resemblance is required for persons as for things: when Christ's role in the Eucharist is to be expressed sacramentally, there would not be this “natural resemblance” which must exist between Christ and his minister if the role of Christ were not taken by a man: in such a case it would be difficult to see in the minister the image of Christ. For Christ himself was and remains a man.

.18. "For since a sacrament is a sign, there is required in the things that are done in the sacraments not only the 'res' but the signification of the 'res"', recalls Saint Thomas, precisely in order to reject the ordination of women: In IV Sent., dist. 25, q. 2 art. 1, quaestiuncula 1a. corp.

.19:Saint Thomas, In IV Sent., dist. 25 q. 2, quaestiuncula 1a ad 4um.