In the Old Testament, all women are bought and sold in marriage, so there's little legal difference between a wife and slave. But a "slave wife" or concubine is often seen, as with Abraham's use of Hagar and Keturah, and women can be forcibly captured and made wives as in Deuteronomy 21:10-14.

Uriah's story has been badly misread by Christian men, who used it to craft a narrative of sexual excess they could use to pardon themselves within the otherwise punishing context of OT law. The details, as usual, were overlooked, and when scholars pointed them out, Christian men ignored them.

Uriah is a Hittite, a tribe Israel was commanded many times to exterminate. And 'Uriah' seems not to be a name, even, but rather a political designation of a Hittite 'ruler', likely in the political family who ruled Jerusalem until David took it over. These facts are noted here and there, with no Christian effort to organize or contextualize them.

https://blogs.bible.org/the-women-in-jesuss-genealogy-if-not-scandalous-what-part-2/

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/uriah

Uriah's marriage to Bathsheba, who is an Israelite, is religiously forbidden, and has no legal standing. That an Israelite woman would be married off to a Hittite and kept in this religiously conflicted state points not to a sex drama, but to a thorny political situation in David's court. Bathsheba's male relatives are later on the side of Absalom against David, so it seems they didn't like him and were working against him.

But then it appears God points to Bathsheba as David's intended consort. He's likely pacing the roof at the time thinking of his political problem of having an heir—and there she is, having just done a mikeveh and so religiously purified for sex. The language around Bathsheba points to her agency, as if she wants to be sexual with David, understandable enough.

I cite some sources in this article that you might want to be familiar with in general.

https://medium.com/belover/christians-made-up-their-stupid-sex-rules-1596845602b7