Kasha what excactly do you want to prove when you bring from “Kesuvos 48a-48b (Mishna) – A girl is always in her father’s “Reshus”, until she enters her husband’s “Reshus” for Nisu’in”, if it’s not that a woman is an object to be ruled over?
Now what happens when she decides not to marry? Furthermore, what happens if she doesn’t have a father who takes care of her i.e. abandoned her or he died? And what happens if she doesn’t have any brothers either to be under their reshus?
The mishna, in my humble opinion is clearly talking about who has an obligation to take care of the woman, but not that she is under a reshus as an object.
The orange/ apple analogy that you bring forth proves my point – not yours. Apples and oranges are euqal in the terms of being classified as fruits, however they are different fruits.
The husband should be TREATED as a king and the wife as a queen simply because that’s simply what they are. As to who rules over whom, as I continue to mention that is mekom (in this case not only place, but time as well) minhag. Therefore if there would be a king in England he would rule over his queen equaly as his queen rules over him. In other words, they are both figureheads and on equal footing.