Some dictatorships are doing stricter rules lawyering than any democracy, the "issue" being that there's an unambiguous rule somewhere that the King is sovereign without limits on their power.
Mostly because while dictatorships might have “strict laws”, they are typically left as vague and generally-applicable as possible, precisely so that they can be used in whichever way the dictator wants.
Also, those “laws” don’t matter anyway in a dictatorship, and “rules lawyering” we are talking about here wouldn’t apply there. More specifically, “rules lawyering” isn’t a thing in a dictatorship, just like they are not a thing in a kingdom[0]. Do you think someone would be able to lawyer up and win a case by finding a loophole in the laws, against someone in a dictatorship? I strongly doubt it.
Dictatorships are imo just kingdoms, but with the ruler not “chosen by divine powers” or having to be a descendant of the previous dictator in power, and with the whole pretense theater of a legal system that only “matters” until someone in power doesn’t get involved (and then it becomes purely about who has the higher rank within that structure of dicratorship). It is basically the same, but at least old school kingdoms (unlike dictatorships) weren’t acting pretense about it and often plainly and openly just went “yeah, i am a king, who is a descendant of that one king who was chosen by some divine powers, legally i can do whatever i want, and i will be in the right.”
0. Talking about an old type of a kingdom, not talking about something like modern day Kingdom of Sweden (which is still the current official name of the country).
I think you have this backwards.