When viewed in a certain light, maybe. But the monarch's hands are tied by parliament: while in theory the Queen may choose not to assent to a bill put before her, it's widely considered that freedom would be withdrawn if she actually tried to use it.

Much of what goes into the sausage-making that is the UK parliamentary system is there by custom, on the one hand because it would be legislatively expensive to modernise; on the other because no-one would ever agree on what to replace it with.

The Sovereign would never risk a showdown with the House of Commons because the latter would win. As such, the Sovereign’s role is largely ceremonial.

This is pretty much the case for any monarchy in europe these days.

In Belgium for instance, the monarch has to sign all legislation into law. For personal reasons, could not sign a abortion bill drafted by the belgium parlement.

Because denying to sign the bill directly would results in basically the end of the monarchy, he decided to "resign" for a day, the cabinet assumed his powers, the bill got signed, and he was reinstated again.[0]

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/05/world/belgian-king-unable...