Some commentators see a softening of the word "rape" in that passage. So, for instance, Paul Copan's Is God a Moral Monster? (in which he consults Old Testament scholars like Richard Hess, Tremper Longman, John Goldingay and the like) states,

If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes [tapas—"takes/catches"—a weaker verb than "forces" in v. 25] her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days. (vv. 28-29)

Upon closer inspection, the context emphasizes the protection of women, not the insignificance of women. We should first distinguish among three scenarios in the Deuteronomy 22 passage:

1. adultery between two consenting adults—a man and an engaged woman (v. 23), which is a violation of marriage ("he has violated his neighbor's wife")

1. the forcible rape of an engaged woman (v. 25), whose innocence is assumed
2. the seduction of an unengaged woman (v. 28), an expansion on the seduction passage of Exodus 22:16-17

In each case, the man is guilty. . . . Regarding verses 28-29, various scholars see Exodus 22:16-17 as the backdrop to this scenario. Both passages are variations on the same theme. Even if there is some pressure from the man, the young woman is complicit; though initially pressured (seduced), she doesn't act against her will. The text says "they are discovered" (v. 28), not "he is discovered." Both are culpable. Technically, this pressure/seduction could not be called forcible rape, falling under our contemporary category of statutory rape. Though the woman gave in, the man here would bear the brunt of the responsibility.

As it would have been more difficult for a woman to find a husband had she been sexually involved with another before marriage, her bride-price—a kind of economic security for her future—would have been in jeopardy. The man guilty of statutory rape seduced the unengaged woman; he wasn't a dark-alley rapist whom the young woman tried to fight off or from whom she tried to run away.

Jewish exegetes like Moshe Weinfeld also accept this view of the "rapist" as a seducer (see Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School).

Other scholars (Peter Craigie in his International Commentary) point out that the word is best translated rape, but that the Law takes into consideration the ancient near Eastern view on relationships in general. The concept of romantic relationships that resulted in marriage was rare in early collectivist agrarian societies. People didn't marry. Family's married. A woman did not belong to herself, she belonged to the family. A marriage was a bond that strengthened families within the community/tribe. In the ancient world, a woman who was not previously married, but was no longer a virgin was not desirable marriageable material. By insisting that the rapist marry the woman he raped, he was forced to both support that woman, and any child that might have been the result of the rape. It's unthinkable to modern ears, but it made sense in the ancient world where someone without the support of family would find themselves going into prostitution or selling themselves into slavery. The woman was further protected in that the rapist was prohibited from divorcing his victim. So, in effect, he had to live with the consequences of his crime. Some suggest, though, that even here, the rapist was not required to marry his victim...and that it was largely up to the father of the victim to make that decision.

I have a question re: this in Islamic law. It seems contrary to orthodox shari'a interpretations, since rape generally mandates the death penalty. However the law is near-ubiquitous in Arabic countries, deriving from an Ottoman 1858 law. Am I correct in inferring that this may be derived from the abduction-marriage law of the Code Napoleon? I have only a very loose understanding of the Ottoman 1850's "legal modernization".

As a follow up question, to what extent would rape and consensual pre-marital sex be considered the same act? Also, would this law be used as an out for young couples in love who want to marry anyway to enjoy pre-marital sex and/or to prevent an arranged marriage that would separate them?

On mobile so cant get to sources at the moment.

Orthodox jews do hold the opinion that women have the right to refuse a marriage (see people asking rebecca, isaac's wife, if she is willing to marry him). Combined with the rape requirement, this came to be harmonized that if raped the woman could compel the rapist to marry her.