Historically I would have expected the king to be the OP piece, and possibly the queen to the weak but capable damsel he must protect. The entire plot of chess would make more historical sense if it was about a mighty king protecting his people and, most importantly, his queen. But even if the heroic king dies the queen is still alive so the war isn't over.
Anyway, the plot we do have is mysterious. The queen, who historically never went into battle, is the most OP piece. She protects her weak-ass husband. The way it is, the plot seems to present a loser king who needs his powerful wife's protection and leadership.
So how did it get that way?
First, I've answered a similar question on why the Queen is so strong here. The short version is Queen Isabella of Spain inspired a weak "Advisor" piece being rebranded as a powerful "Queen" in the late 15th century. In modern chess, we give the King an attacking value of about 3.5, meaning it's slightly more powerful than a Knight or Bishop. We value the Queen around 9, so yes, the Queen is much more powerful than the King. However, the King is infinitely more important, since the loss of the King results in an instant loss. I would argue that part of the enduring charm of chess lies in the fact that the most powerful piece and most important piece are not one in the same.