I will begin this answer with a bit of unprofessional language in order to properly explain my attitude to the question - By GOD, this is complex.

There really isn't a polite and clean answer. You make mention of the internecine conflicts within England that were undertaken to make the monarch 'comply' as you say, but it must be noted that similar struggles did occur across Europe. In Poland during the 12th century, the land was essentially divided into several principalities, all fighting to either control or dominate the realm. In France, the Armagnac-Valois conflict was, in no small part, a conflict between the ruling dynasty and a powerful feudal vassal. These are both acts of various alliances of nobility attempting to enforce their 'will' upon the ruling monarch.

However, I do see your point. There are few countries where coalitions of nobility had such a consistent history of deposing, defeating, coercing, and disrupting the monarchy as in England. This is by no means a feature unique to the late medieval period; Godwin of Wessex was a rebellious vassal who was essentially able to challenge King Edward the Confessor atleast twice.

However, the question is broad. I have engaged most of my attention on a period where the English monarchy went through several periods of significant instability. As such, I believe fundamentally that the power of Parliament is founded as much on the military capabilities of the nobility as its' usefulness to the crown.

You see, in his book The Knight in Medieval England, 1000-1400, Peter Coss outlines the various ebbs and flows of knights in England. One thing he particularly noticed was that, in times of significant military engagement, the numbers of knights tended to trend upwards. More knights means more influence for Parliament. More influence for Parliament means that they can set more demands upon the king when he, say, asks for taxes or stipends to be levied. In the 14th and 15th centuries, Parliament's institutions gained crucial influence as Edward III was forced to remove several councillors who were deemed against the public interest in 1376.

It was a very gradual process. In the early days of Parliament, the military might of its' participants was the only real way of exercising decisive influence on the monarchy. Combining this with decisive concessions by the crown, such as the removal of councillors in 1376 under the Good Parliament, lead to a gradual increase in the confidence of Parliament and its' participants.

Parliaments were not common things; but we can view the increasing number of Parliaments taking action against the monarchy as symptomatic of a state of relations between the English nobility and the crown. But let us not over exaggerate; the most severe challenges to royal authority were almost always dynastic ones; Henry IV, Edward IV, Richard III, these were all men who took their crowns through force. Even when the challenges were centered around the magnates of England, they were often attempting to redress personal grievances, such as Thomas of Lancaster.

England's history of Parliaments is incredibly complex, with many of them being mere tools for ruling monarchs. But the fact that English monarchy was founded by a conqueror contributed; there was no illusions that the crown was an unattainable and unassailable position. The Anarchy saw the rule of law and royal authority severely weakened. This continued on, into the Angevin and Plantagenet era, because there was always a view amongst the upper nobility that military force was a viable form of redress; both within the family and without. Henry II's rule was marred by conflict with his sons. Henry III's heavily-challenged rule was stabilised by a significant string of concessions offered by his son, Edward I. These concessions were vital to the progress of Parliament's authority. In the reign of Edward I, the use of Parliament to exchange concessions became the new model, as shown in 1295. This connection to the purse strings of England is perhaps the most key aspect of Parliament's growth of authority. I feel it was vital to the Parliamentarian victory during the English Civil War.

England developed in a very peculiar way, both socially and economically, due to the Hundred Years War, but also due to the rather unique blend of Anglo-Saxon legalism and traditions with Norman and French government and noble culture. Parliament was, in some ways, similar to the Witan, yet in others far more restricted. But as the social fabric of England transformed, so too did it's centers of powers. With wealth being consolidated into the burghers and gentry, the Commons began to exhibit more and more power.

I apologise if this answer is a touch scatterbrained. But I hope it has pointed out some potential areas of study.