In principle I agree with you about people having choices, but in practice many women are basically forced to work, to help provide a family, either with the basic necessities of life because living costs are so high, or with the lifestyle choices and material possesions, society educates/indoctrinates them to believe they must have.
The high basic cost of living is, in part, based around the general inclusion of women in the work force and the extra domestic revenues and hence taxation generated by these incomes. So families without two incomes are increasingly disadvantaged. In scandinavian countries, almost one entire wage from a working family goes towards govt taxes. That would of course be impossible if there was only one income in a family.
Whereas the australian govt used to provide tax relief for people with a dependent spouse, the movement by unions and governments to get as many women as possible into the work force slowly changed the tax regime so that it now disadvantages and penalises familires where a woman(or a man) stays at home to care for children. Rather from the increased income tax take of more employed, it provides very high child care rebates for poorer families to put their children into professional child care.This further diminishes the role of family and parents.