Quoting myself from a previous answer to a similar question:

This is a question that has become somewhat of a trope in early English history, as well as women's studies. Pauline Stafford in "Women and the Norman Conquest" points out that the history of this idea is itself an interesting historical question which points to the intentions of the various writers who proposed it. From Tacitus in 1st century Rome to John Mitchell Kemble in 19th century London, various writers have pushed the idea that the Germanic/Anglo-Saxon woman was better-off than women of other cultures.

Unfortunately, they all had rather interesting reasons for propounding this view:

"Tacitus' Germanic women, for example, were a foil to the decadence of contemporary Rome, which he, like many of his contemporaries, blamed on women. Society for him is healthy when women are chaste, mothers and controlled by their husbands, not when they visit the theatre and the baths, exchange love letters with their lovers and fail to breastfeed. Tacitus constructs a Germanic woman with which to beat the Romans of his own day"

[...]

"Kemble, using Anglo-Saxon women against the feminists of his own day, was happy to echo the ancient Roman. He placed Anglo-Saxon women and their high status firmly within the home, that sacred place where women were 'near akin to divinity'. But there they should stay.[...] Early English women happily accepted men's representation of them in public life, content to be beings of a higher nature. They did not clamour and rave for the rights of women. Kemble's Teutonic women are a mid-nineteenth-century conservative male pipe dream."

Stafford does a pretty good job dismantling the view that the Norman Conquest ended a sort-of Golden Age for women in England. She points out that, while many have claimed that Anglo-Saxon women were, ostensibly, given greater legal rights with regards to holding, inheriting and divesting property, pre-Conquest women only held about 5% of the land, and most of that was held by only 8 women who were from particularly powerful noble families or the Royal Family itself. Her handling of the morning gift/dowry idea - that Anglo-Saxon women had control over land that they brought into the marriage, while Norman women did not - is also excellent. She shows that, not only did dowry exist in pre-Conquest England but that examples exist of post-Conquest women controlling both dower and dowry.

In the end, she concludes, "there are many [serious arguments] for abandoning the idea of 1066 as a turning point of great significance in the history of English women, and for jettisoning the Anglo-Saxon Golden Age. Both ideas are more a product of the political concerns of past historians than of the experience of the eleventh century"

Germanic women might have had some cultural advantages that we could look at as greater 'women's rights', comparatively, but it wasn't a case of enshrined rights granted to all women.

If it had to be boiled down into one simple statement it would be that some Germanic women, of a particular social class, enjoyed a small amount of increased personal and economic freedom than some women among neighboring societies.