I think because I find it difficult to decide when and where to draw boundaries once they are crossed, I probably devote a fair amount of attention to preventing situations where that becomes an issue. Therefore, what may seem kind of judgey to non-Fe users is more of an attempt to draw up a loose set of guidelines for what is reasonable and what is not and then if it is not reasonable, I just don't get involved, and thereby experience considerably less stress. I find that more difficult to do with people whom I'm very close to (feel like my judgement gets more cloudy and my certainty of what is reasonable or unreasonable fuzzes up).
I think one of the reasons why Fe users are always looking for underlying meaning, subtext or the objective of the speaker is that they want to know how they could achieve common ground while still remaining true to the wants and wishes of both parties involved. That is why it is extremely frustrating to me when someone communicates something but insists that there is no outcome that they are hoping for or expecting. It leaves me uncertain as to how to respond.
I generally am less likely to look at a specific course of action as the way to satisfy someone, but more that I need to figure out their underlying expectation and then see if there's a way that can be accommodated without it having to be win/lose. For example, if I'm requested to do something that I don't want to do, but am fairly sure that the underlying reason for the request is X, I might offer a couple of other options to the person to see if those would be acceptable instead. If it is, great. If not, then I weigh the consequences of not doing it with the relationship I have with the person, the behaviour they have shown towards me and others, any moral element involved, my own identity, whether I believe I can deliver what is wanted, whether this is a short term or a long term kind of issue and how strongly I feel about it. Then I make a decision.