To copy from something I wrote a few days ago - I've actually written a number of answers on this subject:

Mary Tudor was the first queen regent of England. Was this noted at the time? Was there any significant reaction, positive or negative, to having a solo female ruler?

Did ruling Queens in historical Europe face gender discrimination?

Were women monarchs as respected as their male counterparts?

The Romanov Dynasty had several female sovereigns such as Catherine I, Anna, Elisabeth and Catherine II (the Great); how did the reigns of these women impact the way that women were viewed, in both Russia as well as around Europe?

How were Female rulers Like Catherine the Great and Queen Victoria seen as capable of ruling when women in those days were thought of as lesser than men.

It's often hard to really get a grasp on the patriarchy, because it's so big and so encompassing. I make a point in a few of those linked answers that historical fiction typically gives us a very black-and-white perspective where people either believe women can do anything men can, or else they're condescending jerks who think women are incapable of rational thought and real strength. The grey zone of people who, for instance, believe women are naturally suited to motherhood and social reform causes because they're genuinely morally superior to men don't turn up in fiction unless they're shown to be hypocrites, and so we don't really have to deal with the fact that sexism can go hand-in-hand with beliefs in female competence. (Note my answer here on women against female suffrage, which also deals with this issue.) And we don't see men who are generally supportive of their daughters, sisters, and/or female friends in their unconventional pursuits, but also expect their wives to be conventional in order to reflect well upon themselves as heads of the household, or any other hypocritical and complex contradictions. This makes it harder to understand how people could believe that women had no place in political campaigning and wrangling but also support a queen like Victoria, who portrayed herself as a loving and subordinate wife and above politics.

Now for some non-copied writing. I think you're really getting at the issue when you say "they are often portrayed" and "kings who ruled during the same period ... of which I can't really name one that was on the same level". That is, your impression that English queens have historically been extremely powerful has a lot to do with how they're depicted and talked about. Queen Elizabeth I did a lot of this in her own lifetime, creating an image of herself as the most glorious and richest monarch of Europe through her dress, jewels, and pageantry, and presenting herself as bringing back the true faith of England - a characterization that became extremely important later, once Anglican Protestantism became fully entrenched in English culture. On the other hand, Queen Victoria didn't actually do much for her image after Prince Albert's death about a third of the way through her reign; she effectively retreated from public life, and the association her name and image have with greatness in the second half of the nineteenth century have a lot to do with the success of the country in colonizing and exploiting other nations outside of her influence. In the popular imagination, the work of their advisers and ministers are completely invisible, and all successes come from the queen's decisions in directing troops, trade, and policy.