A documentary drama about the American Wallis Simpson (the influence upon Edward VIII causing him to abdicate the throne of England on 10th December 1936) is titled 'Wallis : The Queen That Never Was'.
The piece is written and directed by Paul Olding, a British writer and director.
Immediately I saw the title, I paused as I would have expected it to say 'who never was', since Wallis Simpson was a person and the usual pronoun regarding persons is 'who', not 'that'.
It is true there is a mixture of concepts, here.
The title is not questioning the historic existence of the person, but is stating that she never became Queen of England. So the title is stating something about the office of Queen. That office was never upon that historic person.
In which case the title of the piece actually means 'The Woman who never became Queen'. And in that case, one would not say :
The Woman That Never Became Queen
but rather :
The Woman Who Never Became Queen
Should not the pronoun be 'who' in this particular case ?
Edit : The Ngram suggested in @Peter Shor 's answer is interesting and I have added 'a/the woman who// a/the woman that' which shows a significantly greater modern weighting for 'the woman who' and an even greater modern weighting for 'a woman who', which is notable for with the indefinite article the phrase, supposedly, becomes less 'specific'.
Edit: The suggested duplicate does not answer my question as this situation is specific to the mixed concept of person and office and it is clear from answers and comments, thus far, that the language is changing in regard, especially, to the use of 'that' and 'who' in relation to women, as can be seen from the Ngram.
I believe that this question has highlighted something interesting happening within the language and I believe that the subject is worth pursuing further.