something i think would make a lot of historical romance more accurate & interesting is the realization that people are less likely to totally disparage the ethical & social values of their time than they are to use those values to defend whatever it is they want to do
a woman is less likely to go "it's stupid that women are expected to be modest" than she is to go "there is nothing immodest about a woman going out without a chaperone" or even "i can go out without a chaperone because i am so modest"
people also seem less likely to see someone's shitty behavior as reflecting a shitty society than they are to view that behavior as being out of accordance with that society - e.g. a father who's excessively controlling of his daughters' marriage prospects isn't, in her mind, acting that way because he lives in a repressive patriarchal culture, but is actually outdated in his values - his cruelty is unmodern, ungentlemanly, stuck in the past, barbaric. we might think he's upholding the values of his culture perfectly, but the people around him who took issue with his behavior probably wouldn't see it that way
I think this goes hand-in-hand with people seeing past cultures as a monolith and forgetting that there are liberal and conservative people in every era.
In Jane Austen's novels, we see one very strict conservative family, the Bertrams in Mansfield Park, and one very permissive family in the Bennets in Pride & Prejudice. Not all families are treating their daughters the same. Every era would have this, fathers who spoil their daughters vs. fathers who are very strict with them. There have always been instances of fathers giving their daughters a full male education for example. If you want your historical fiction daughter to really struggle against her father, make her father worse than average. Have the other girls say that her father is the worst one, instead of imagining that every father is equally bad (which is dumb).
Or, a heroine should mourn that her father doesn't follow the ideals of their society properly. Usually every oppression comes with a protection, so a father controlling his wife and daughter is meant to be so he can protect them. Most of Austen's novels are about how the rich are supposed to have privilege and responsibility, but they don't live up to the responsibility. Jane Austen doesn't seem to support overthrowing her entire society, she just wants the rich to do their job properly. This would feel a lot more authentic to the time than "burn it all down for a future I can't even imagine as an ancient woman"
