Phenomena such as the that-trace effect and the Accessibility Hierarchy (Keenan & Comrie 1977) exemplify the observation that certain types of DP extraction distinguish the position of 'subject'. In relative clauses (RCs), the position of 'highest subject' is frequently the locus of an extraction restriction, such that subjects of certain types of RCs may not be relativized. Uyghur (Turkic) has been argued to make use of two different relativization strategies, one which gives rise to possessive agreement on the head noun and one in which the agreement is absent (Kornfilt 2008c, Csató & Uchturpani 2010, Asarina 2011), the former of which disallows subject relativization (Kornfilt 2008c, Csató & Uchturpani 2010). This paper presents novel data in support of the claim that there is in fact no restriction prohibiting extraction of subjects in Uyghur RCs. Rather, I argue that purportedly unacceptable subject relativizations arise from unlicensed pro-drop of an RC-external, agreement-triggering DP, and show that structurally analogous examples are fully acceptable in contexts that license the pro-drop. Given that subject extraction asymmetries in RCs have been widely observed in related languages (Turkish: Kornfilt 2008c; Sakha: Kornfilt 2005a, 2008c; Kazakh: Ótott-Kovács 2020; Kyrgyz: Laszakovits 2019a, 2019b), this account has the potential to be relevant in understanding these apparent asymmetries beyond Uyghur.