Well, England certainly didn't choose to have Queens, at first. Their very first attempt at one was a disaster. Henry I had made all of his leading men to swear they'd accept his daughter, Matilda, as ruler. But after his death they quickly went for his nephew Stephen instead. However, she still managed to acquire a good deal of support. Enough to lead to a decade and a half of civil war. And her being a woman was certainly a huge part of the issue with her rule. But it wasn't the only reason. The succession concept wasn't quite as firm as it would later be as Henry I, himself, had taken over despite his older brother, Robert, still being alive. Stephen had been able to seize the treasury after Henry's death while Matilda was in France. And her husband, Geoffrey of Anjou, was wildly unpopular with the Normans. (Normans and Angevins had a long standing feud.) And he wasn't very popular with Matilda either for that matter but they were a strong team, in their way. Although the issues with her husband plays back into the fears of being a woman as naturally her husband would lead (although, it's hard to believe anyone who had met her would believe this was true of Matilda.) After Matilda there was a long line of male succession with one or two coups (one by a woman, Isabella, but with her lover.)

Henry VIII was notoriously concerned about the idea of leaving a daughter to inherit. Although, while most of his contemporaries would have preferred a male heir, most also though he was overreacting to the situation. There wasn't widespread support for his annulment from Catherine of Aragon even among Protestants.

But they were in the situation after the death of Edward VI that all of the closest claimants were women. Edward VI left no children and two sisters. Those with the best claims other than his sisters were the descendants of his aunts, Mary and Margaret. By the time of his death this was largely (although not completely) women.

Edward VI sought to make the protestant Lady Jane Grey his heir. But that was quickly bypassed in favor of Mary I, who had been restored to the succession by Henry VIII.

When Mary died Elizabeth was the only natural person to succeed.

So, they didn't have a choice. Or, they could choose a peaceful succession or war. A war without a very viable male successor. And it was certainly more difficult for Elizabeth as a woman. They didn't particularly like it. And even her closest advisors found dealing with her "female temperament" difficult. Which is a little funny since Elizabeth could be very difficult but she paled in comparison to her father when it came to mood swings. All of her close advisors kept their heads.

But Elizabeth ruled for 44 years. Enough time for everyone to see that having a queen may not be ideal but it wasn't a disaster. There was general relief when she died and they finally had a king again. But that feeling went away pretty quickly because of the early Stuarts' frequent clashes with Parliament. Whether true or not, her reign relatively quickly started to be seen as a golden age. That's a bit unfair on James for several reasons (Elizabeth wasn't anymore keen on Parliament she was just a bit more politic.) But reality isn't what matters here. The perception certainly made queens more palatable. By the time of James II a protestant queen was far more acceptable than a Catholic king. And her rule didn't just have influence on the perception in England. Elizabeth was used as an example for Elizabeth of Russia and Catherine the Great.

So, basically, they had no choice. The difference with England and some other countries, such as France, was they never formally barred women from succession. But the reason they didn't wasn't necessarily because they valued women more. It hadn't come up before Lady Jane Grey/Mary I since the days of Matilda.

But, even then, I don't think England is that much of an exception in Europe. Russia didn't just have Catherine the Great (who was Catherine the second). Catherine followed the long rule of Elizabeth (with that brief intercession of that pesky husband of hers.) Both Elizabeth and Catherine got on the throne, and kept it for many years, due to coups. Elizabeth (of Russia) had a birth right, at least, but Catherine did not. That they had military support and were able to keep their thrones for so long is far more extraordinary than the Tudor women inheriting their thrones.

Prior to Elizabeth (with a brief interlude of Ivan VI) was Anna, who reigned ten years. There was also the brief reign of Catherine I who was co-ruler with Peter the Great and succeeded him. And, beyond all of that, when Peter was a young man his sister Sophia successfully usurped the government and ran it as regent for several years. Which is even more incredible as when Peter was a young man noble women in Russia were expected to be kept out of sight. At the time princesses were especially supposed to be locked away.

And France never had a queen but it did have the powerful regency of Catherine de Medici, whom everyone knew was running things for much of her sons' reigns. She took as an example Blanche of Castille who was a powerful regent for her son Louis IX.

The Hapsburgs had successful female rulers. Obviously, Empress Maria Theresa. But not just her. Margaret of Austria was regent/governor of the Netherlands, which was Hapsburg territory at this time, for 24 years. Her niece, Mary, was regent after her for almost the same amount of time. Both were fairly popular governors. They weren't queens but they had powerful leadership positions in an economically crucial area. They were chosen to rule the area by their relatives but didn't simply inherit by birth and lack of male heirs, which in some ways is more incredible than just inheriting.

I'm not well versed enough in Spanish history to speak to it but you certainly have strong examples, such as Isabella, there, as well. There was Margaret I of Denmark. We could really do a tour of Europe and more names would pop up with varying degrees of success.

There were also many powerful women who never quite reached the role of ruler through out Europe.

In a world where right to rule is closely associated with family and birth women have access they might not have otherwise. Women were absolutely considered inferior to men (generally speaking, of course, individual women might be seen to have superior qualities to their individual male competitors.) But the child of Henry VIII is always going to superior to anyone else, male or female. A Hapsburg woman is still superior to a male peasant in that society.

Beyond that in the setup of the later Middle Ages into the early Modern period women of noble birth were expected to take on some role in Western Europe. Men were expected to be military leaders and this meant women leading the house while they were away and they had many duties while men were still around. And a manor is a major task to take on. And, of course, women inherited from fathers or husbands or were regents for their sons (if the king approved, in England.) There isn't the strict division of labor you might expect from later eras. Again, that's not to say there was any concept or idea that women were equally competent. But most people at least in England or France would have known some woman who was running a major estate. It wouldn't be so very foreign to them that a woman could take on a leadership role even if nobody considered it an ideal situation.

England had queens who reigned a very long time (Elizabeth I, Victoria, Elizabeth II) during crucial turning points in history. And, because of that, I believe we've come to associate England and later the United Kingdom with queens.

(ETA: Obviously when I say having a female ruler isn't ideal I mean from their POV. Not my own.)