The marriage of women and their right to consent in marriage have always been subject to adaptation and criticism by Islamic jurists, especially Shia jurists. What are the theoretical foundations and positions of Shia jurisprudential models and their inclinations regarding “a woman’s authority over herself in interaction with others in the context of marriage” from the perspective of traditional and reformist jurists? What are the commonalities and differences between the Shia jurisprudential currents in contemporary Iran and their positions on this matter from the perspective of traditional and reformist jurists? (Question) It appears that in the theoretical foundations and positions of Shia jurisprudential models, the traditional jurisprudential view emphasizes male-centricity, while the reformist jurisprudential view emphasizes the welfare of both spouses (Quran-centered jurisprudence) or equality between men and women (other-oriented jurisprudence or human-centered jurisprudence). (Hypothesis) To understand this matter, the present article, with a descriptive-analytical approach in the form of a library and documentary study and by utilizing traditional and reformist Shia jurisprudential sources, has separately examined it thematically. It has identified, as much as possible, the commonalities and differences, similarities and divergences in the opinions and views of jurists affiliated with both schools. An attempt has been made to view the involved factors with an impartial perspective, avoiding extremes, and refraining from exaggerating one or a few factors. Through logical and evidence-based analysis, considering the interaction and interconnectedness of parameters, these factors and characteristics have been identified and re-examined. (Theoretical Framework)