This argument on the question; are women better rulers than men? Will focus on the example of Elizabeth I compared to the average of male rulers.
It mostly depends which era you live in, in modern times it would really not make much of a difference as both genders are considered equal. But in the Tudor era, looking at it from the present, a female would definitely have had the upper hand, but from the common perspective of people in the Tudor times a female would have been considered lower, for a number of reasons, the main one being, female rulers were supposed to have a husband to make the decisions for them, while the queen got on producing a male heir. Because it was lady-like in those times. The definition for lady-like then was to be quiet, sit in a corner be submissive to males and not be able to do any thing for themselves.
That really did challenge Elizabeth in the start as her parliament kept pestering her toThere were a number of traits that Elizabeth also had that made her more successful than others. One of them was she was fluent in 6 languages; her native English, French, Italian, Spanish, Greek, and Latin. Later she came to terms with a bit of german. They became very useful to her in foreign plolitical situations such as when shemade an alliance with France. The St Bartholomew's Day Massacre, in which thousands of French Protestants (Huguenots) were killed, strained the alliance but did not break it. Elizabeth even began marriage negotiations with Henry, Duke of Anjou , and afterwards with his younger brother FranÃÂ§ois, Duke of Anjou and AlenÃÂ§on.
Another was that she was a just ruler and upheld the law, when she wanted, she could be ruthless...