With the G-S algorithm solution to the stable marriage problem, the proposers get the best possible stable matches, while the reviewers get the worst possible stable matches. This is because the proposers keep walking down the list from their best preference downwards till the stable solution is found, while the reviewers walk up the list from where they start.
To improve the fairness to both parties, consider an alternating variant of the algorithm, where in each cycle, proposers and reviewers exchange roles (for example, in each cycle, men and women switch between the role of proposer and reviewer). Would this terminate with a stable match? If yes, would the resulting stable match be fairer to both parties than the original G-S algorithm?