CathInfo.com

This is the question of self-detraction:
McHugh & Callan Moral Theology:

1577. Is self-detraction, that is, the revelation of some real fault or defect, lawful?

(a) If there is question of faults or defects that are of a public nature and generally known, a disclosure made in a good spirit and in a proper manner, and from which beneficial and not harmful results can be foreseen, is lawful, and sometimes obligatory. Example: Balbus has calumniated his neighbors, and he now admits the fact, not to boast about or excuse it, but to make satisfaction; he does not repeat the details of his defamatory remarks, but merely states that he wishes to retract what he had no right to say; he has every reason to think that his present course will undo the harm caused by the defamation. Balbus does right in thus acknowledging his mistake.

(b) If there is question of faults or defects not generally known, the reasons for mentioning them should be more serious, unless the sins are of a trifling nature. Examples: Caius once served a term in jail for dishonesty, but he is now a decent citizen. His family would be scandalized and would feel disgraced, if they knew this. But Caius thinks it would be a suitable reparation to tell them of his former guilt. Caius is wrong. To speak of his past experience would only add the sin of scandal to the old one, and there are other ways in which he can do penance in further expiation of dishonesty. Claudius wishes to marry Sempronia, but the latter insists that there must be no secrets between husband and wife, and that he must give her complete and accurate answers on certain questions about his past career—for example, whether he has ever been drunk, whether he has ever wished to be drunk, whether he has ever had questionable relations with other women, etc. Claudius should not deceive Sempronia, nor leave her in ignorance of any serious objection to the marriage, even if she forgot to mention it in her questions; but he owes it to himself not to put himself in her power by giving her information which she would probably use against him then or later. Titus has stolen a considerable sum, and, for the sake of getting advice and direction on how to make restitution, he consults a prudent friend who will regard his communication as confidential, just as if he were a confessor. Titus does not act against his own reputation by telling his case to this friend.

Thus, no, the "potential spouse" has no "right to know sɛҳuąƖ history before marriage".

It's not about having "no secrets at all" between husband and wife. That's a bit much. But some little factoids affect the wife, the marriage, and the family -- so I believe those things she has a right to. Just the basic facts "is he a virgin or not", "does he have kids by another woman or not", "was he married before or not", "does he have any venereal diseases", etc.

You can't tell me a spouse doesn't have a right to know these things about their spouse-to-be. How can you consent to something you don't know? If he's had lots of women in the past,  it's highly likely in this age of DNA tests and the Internet that one of these women will come around seeking child support, or one of his bastard children will want to meet their dad. How would that not screw up a "good Catholic family" he started later with a virgin Catholic woman?

Think of all the explaining he'd have to do to his legitimate children -- of all ages. How they have brothers and sisters they hadn't met yet for some reason. Think of all the birds-and-bees discussions that would have to take place before the proper time.

Now that virgin spouse might waive his right to not have to deal with such soap opera drama - but that should be his choice.

Here's one solution to deal with non-virgin "non-disclosers" -- make sure you make it clear -- perhaps before witnesses and in writing -- that you would only marry a non-virgin, and that you'd divorce anyone who deceived you on this matter. Then if it comes out later that he lied, at least you'd have some chance of getting an annulment for his blatant misrepresentation and deception to procure the marriage contract. Such fundamental, cut-and-dried deception would clearly invalidate the marriage.

Oh, and if I were a young lady, I would definitely do my DUE DILIGENCE and look into the man's past. Look him up on social media, pose as a high school friend and see what you can find out, etc. I'd probably pay the $30 or $60 fee to do a background check. Or a few hundred dollars for a private investigator. Think that's excessive? You can't be too careful these days. We're talking about avoiding a life of misery, loneliness (divorced but can't remarry), poverty, strife, etc.  I think a few hundred dollars would be well spent to avoid that! Oh, and as a bonus (since you never married "the wrong guy"), you might also GET a nice Catholic man, loving family, beautiful Catholic household, many beautiful well-raised Catholic children, grandchildren, etc. as a bonus! A few hundred dollars sounds like a bargain now...

For example virginity, how many partners, whether one was abused or not, etc?

Pamphleteer Fr. Daniel Lord, SJ said that the answer is NO, assuming that the sin had been confessed and it was not being committed anymore.

I myself have a sinful past and I wouldn't want a potential spouse to know about it.

.
Fr. Daniel Lord was a Jesuit before Vatican 2. He lived in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. He devoted his whole life to guiding young people. He wrote dozens of books and pamphlets on youth, marriage, and family life.
.
In addition to the spectacular Jesuit formation he received, he possessed a level of experience in the care of souls, and trust from his superiors, that no priest alive today could claim, let alone someone on an internet forum.
.
Go with what Fr. Lord says.