Short answer:

Not a dumb question-- it's one whose answer gets to the heart of medieval and early modern ideas about political power. Don't assume that "people then" thought like "people now", or that power was ever really absolute.

Discussion:

Variations of this question have been asked before. You make an assumption

"There have been multiple female absolute monarchs in history who had total power over the laws"

. . . that’s too strong as regards your example Elizabeth I-- and it's not easy to think of many queens with the power you suggest. Mary certainly does have an authoritarian inclination-- but that's with the support of a large Catholic constituency; she could do some things she wanted to do, but not "anything she wanted". Her "bloody" impulses were part of the Wars of Religion-- not something she thought up on her own as a whim.

Queen Elizabeth I was not "absolute monarch" and did not have "total power over the laws". She was a Queen with a Parliament and a hardly supine nobility-- they could and did push her to do all sorts of things she didn't want to do, and there were clearly things she might have wanted to do, but couldn't do. This particularly affects her personal life, where she seems to have had her desires for partners, but was pressed to consider marriage to people she wasn't interested in by others.

One can find female monarchs with power in history -- but its hard to find "multiple female absolute monarchs" with the "total power" you suggest. It is unusual to find any monarch who vastly liberalizes a social order by decree-- Alexander II freeing the serfs comes to mind, but there aren't that many examples, and it's not clear that monarchs possessed the power to change social custom against prevailing values. The most dramatic liberal reordering of a society by a monarchy might be the Meiji Restoration, but this was only nominally at the "Emperor's command" -- and they had to fight a war to accomplish it. [Edit: I should have mentioned Peter the Great here, an even more dramatic example, but the Tsar's power is quite different from what you see in Western Europe-- and his reforms did produce a rebellion, the Streltsy Uprising of 1698, good evidence that there were bounds to the power of even the most powerful monarchs]

Moreover, you assume that Elizabeth's view of a woman's place would naturally conform to contemporary notions of equality-- there's no reason to think that. In the celebrated Tilbury speech -- accepted by most as authentic, though there are some skeptics among scholars- Elizabeth was reported to say

I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too, and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm: to which rather than any dishonour shall grow by me, I myself will take up arms, I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field.

Elizabeth's idea of gender and her idea of her own royal status live in quite separate compartments; she is a king who happens to be a woman; she is not a modern feminist-- we've no sense that her ideas about women were much different from her contemporaries.

For more on this topic see answers to previously asked questions

Was Queen Victoria reacting to a specific group when she said that "feminists ought to get a good whipping"? Why did she have so much hatred for feminists? - where u/sunagainstgold has the very nice discussion of the complexities of women on the throne.

and

Considering their history of prominent female monarchs, how did the British justify denying women the vote?

-- where I discuss Elizabeth and have a bit about Ernst Kantorowicz and ideas about the nature of a King or Queen.

Hey there,

Just to let you know, your question is fine, and we're letting it stand. However, you should be aware that questions framed as 'Why didn't X do Y' relatively often don't get an answer that meets our standards (in our experience as moderators). There are a few reasons for this. Firstly, it often can be difficult to prove the counterfactual: historians know much more about what happened than what might have happened. Secondly, 'why didn't X do Y' questions are sometimes phrased in an ahistorical way. It's worth remembering that people in the past couldn't see into the future, and they generally didn't have all the information we now have about their situations; things that look obvious now didn't necessarily look that way at the time.

If you end up not getting a response after a day or two, consider asking a new question focusing instead on why what happened did happen (rather than why what didn't happen didn't happen) - this kind of question is more likely to get a response in our experience. Hope this helps!