Our daily interactions are influenced by the social roles we endorse. People however underestimate these role constraints in their everyday explanation relying on individual dispositions to make sense of behaviors. Two studies investigated whether this bias is exacerbated when role structure is legitimated and when power matches the advantages conferred by the social roles of a quiz game. Legitimacy as well as power increased the tendency for both advantaged (questioner) and disadvantaged (answerer) actors (Study 1) as well as naïve observers of the quiz game (Study 2) to attribute to ability the behaviors elicited by social roles. These results extend previous findings. People are more prone to explain constrained behaviors by differences in ability when role structure is legitimated and when power asymmetry matches role structure. Legitimacy and power may then play an important role in the translation of role constraints into inferences about ability.