All of these people reigned at drastically different times which is the main reason for their difference in power, but you also have to take into account the different personalities of the monarch which alters how much power they wield. Both Elizabeths are somewhat easier to explain.

Elizabeth I has near absolute power over the affairs of England. Tudor monarchs wielded a greater amount of power than their medieval predecessors and were absolute monarchs. Monarchical power reached its apex in England during this period, which was a trend for European monarchies at the time. So Elizabeth I didn't just have power of the affairs of government, she WAS the government. She was head of the Church of England which gave her complete control of religious affairs, and had supreme authority over her subjects, the power of life and death essentially. Obviously she didn't govern alone, a major power she had was hiring and firing ministers and advisors to do the day to day work of government. The queen effectively formed the executive branch of government, as the office of prime minister didn't exist yet. This isn't to say her power was totally unlimited. Parliament didn't sit permanently yet but it was called to rubber stamp Elizabeths law and most importantly raise taxes. While her grandfather Henry VII had given the crown slightly more monetary independence, taxation was still a requirement and this required a parliamentary vote if it was to be viewed as legitimate. The need to summon parliament for taxation is the major limiting factor on monarchs of this period but this extremely strong monarchy continues until the civil war and it doesn't really go away until the glorious revolution in 1688. Elizabeth was also self confident in her abilities and had no issue with ruling as a absolute monarch and did so.

Elizabeth II is the polar opposite of this, as she has practically no power over the government whatsoever. She as a ceremonial head of state and is seperate from politics. Elizabeth II is also a very private and guarded figure who rarely gives an opinion on anything remotely controversial and doesn't appear to show any political bias towards one party or the other. Most of the power she does wield is done on a ceremonial basis. For example she opens and dissolves parliament and gives royal assent to bills, but it would be inconcievable that she ever withhold consent, something that hasn't been done since 1708.

Victoria is a bit more difficult to pin down. She is certainly closer to Elizabeth II than Elizabeth I in terms of power. The Victorian monarchy was constitional and Victoria has no direct power at all, but what so did have was a certain power over appointment. Unlike Elizabeth II, Victoria was a very opinionated person and had no trouble in sharing her opinions on matters, she was against suffrage for women for example. She also had blatant favourites in prime ministers, those being Lord Melbourne and Benjamin Disraeli, and a certain dislike for a couple such as Palmerston. Victoria liked to appoint prime minister she personally preferred if possible, a notable example of this is effectively blocking the Tory Robert Peel from forming a government in 1839 by refusing to sack her Whig ladies in waiting in the bedchamber crisis. We shouldn't overestimate her willingness to do this, most of the time she would invite whoever commanded a majority in the commons to form a government, but often with ill grace and if it was someone who she disliked, after all other possibilities had been exhausted.