Although I would love to see all remaining discrimination against women abolished, I can’t imagine the future Queen Victoria being the one to do so.
The Crown Princess seems to be a “traditionalist” in relation to gender roles, even when it means she favors foreign gender-unequal traditions over Swedish gender-equal traditions. She and the King caused a massive controversy when they insisted he would walk her down the aisle at her wedding, in contrast to the Swedish national tradition of the bride and groom walking down the aisle together. Shortly before that she chose to follow foreign tradition and wear an engagement ring from her fiancé without giving him one in return, whereas Swedish tradition would have the couple mutually exchange rings.
Later the Crown Princess bestowed her son with a name borne by two Kings of Sweden, but for her daughter - a future queen - she chose a name with no royal significance whatsoever (other than being the name of a foreign-born commoner who married a non-royal descendant of the Swedish royal family; it is as “royal” a name as Gary (Gary Lewis) is for the British royals).
And while this is more subjective, the interviews I have read also give the feeling that the Crown Princess views her marriage through the lens of traditional gender roles. From what I recall, her praise of her husband centered on his strength which she relies on, his protectiveness over her, and his energetic work ethic. Those are of course valid compliments for people of any gender, but they fits with the traditionalist conception of a husband/father’s role: to provide authority, protection, and labor to supply material resources to his wife and children (whereas to traditionalists the wife/mother’s role is to support, nurture, and manage domestic affairs).
Those interested in Fredrik of Hesse's title: See the thread Title & Role of a Consort in General Royal Discussion, starting here.