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.

So far we have two pre-conciliar priests with imprimatur-ed beliefs in the negative; none so far in the affirmative.

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.

That sounds like a pre-nup. Why not just do a virginity test?

.
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.

See, I would want to actually read what Fr Lord said before going on what the OP said he said.  

OP here. I was mistaken about the authorship. It was not a Fr. Lord pamphlet but rather QUESTIONS YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN ASK BEFORE MARRIAGE by Donald F. Miller, C.Ss.R.

Imprimi Potest: John N. McCormick, C.Ss.R, Provincial, St. Louis Province, Redemptorist Fathers November 20, 1961
Imprimatur: + Joseph Cardinal Ritter, Archbishop of St. Louis, November 24, 1961 

Here is the relevant text:

Should an Engaged Girl Reveal Her Past? PART I 

Problem: I am engaged and looking forward to a very happy marriage. But there is one doubt in my mind that seems to cast a shadow over my happiness. Long before I met my fiance, I fell into sin with another person. This has long since been confessed and deeply repented. The doubt in my mind is whether I should tell my husband-to-be about this previous fall. Is such a confession necessary or even advisable for persons about to be married? I dread the thought of it; but do not want anything to stand in the way of our happiness. 

Solution: It is neither necessary nor advisable to make a confession of your past life to the man you are about to marry. You made your confession through the priest to God, and your sin was forgiven. The only lasting effect the sin should have on your life is to keep you humble, grateful for the forgiveness you received, and more and more dependent on God’s help to remain good. But there is no reason for your revealing the past to anyone. Sometimes a man who wants to marry a girl tries to insist that she tell him whether she had ever in her life lapsed from virtue. This is an unjust demand, an uncalled for probing into the secret and sacred conscience of another. A girl has no obligation of making a personal confession even in the face of such demands. Indeed, she may even recognize in such demands a danger sign: they may be motivated by an excessively jealous spirit that would cause her great sorrow after marriage. Even in the case that a boy or girl in love might suggest that they make mutual confessions to each other, the idea should be resisted and rejected. Lovers and engaged couples should be content to be able to say to each other that they cherish the grace of God and freedom from sin above all other goods, and that they will be loyal to each other for the whole of their lives. Moreover, it is more important that they help each other to avoid sin in their own pre-marriage association than that they worry about their own or their partner’s repented past.

Should an Engaged Girl Reveal Her Past? PART II

Problem: We are several girls in our late teens who would like to disagree with an opinion you expressed several months ago. You said that a man had no right to ask a girl whom he wanted to marry whether she had previously fallen from virtue, and that the girl had no obligation of admitting anything about her past to her fiance. We think that if a man wants to know what kind of girl he is marrying he should be allowed to ask her about her past, and that she should honestly tell him. After all, it is important to a man to know that he is marrying a good girl. 

Solution: We are in perfect agreement with the statement that it is important for a man to know that he is marrying a good girl. It is the purpose of the period of company-keeping to provide a man with assurance on this point, and equally so to provide the girl with assurance that he is a good man. By going together for several months, a man and woman can learn all they need to know about the ideals and moral characters of each other, if both are interested enough in this matter to look for and draw out from the other the spiritual and moral principles that are considered of greatest importance. A girl who lacks character and sound moral principles will not be able to hide her lack from a man who really considers such things necessary for a happy marriage. And a man who has not acquired solid virtue will clearly manifest his weakness to a girl who realizes that without it a happy marriage could not be hoped for. This testing of each other’s characters on the part of a boy and girl keeping company does not require open and complete revelations of each one’s past. We have set it down, and we repeat, that it is a general presumption that it is not wise for two people preparing for marriage to make full confessions to each other. It is not good for a man to demand of a girl whom he might ask to marry him that she tell him whether or how she ever fell into sin in the past. In our experience, we have found that most men who insist on being told such things have had rather chequered careers themselves. themselves, and have a leaning toward an unhealthy, not to say morbid, kind of jealousy. There are exceptions, of course, and our presumption, that in general it is best to leave the past buried, leaves room for them. It still remains possible, we believe, for a man to learn all he needs to know about a girl, even up to whether she has ever been a sinner or not, without asking direct questions or demanding revelations. And it is possible for a girl to learn through company keeping whether the man she is going with hates sin, loves virtue, and is willing to face the sacrifices and responsibilities involved. The sad thing is that so many are not interested in these supremely important matters.

That sounds like a pre-nup. Why not just do a virginity test?

"Virginity tests" are impossible to do on a man.  The conventional wisdom nowadays, is that demanding physical evidence of a woman's non-virginity (i.e., intact hymen) is an injustice, because any number of things can happen --- she might be born without one, it might be defective in some way, it may have been torn open through some physical injury, or what have you.  On the other hand, the wisdom nowadays is that some women's hymens can remain intact after intercourse --- not to get too crude, but they "stretch" --- and that hymens can grow back together.  Both would be more likely "if she'd only done it once or twice", as many claim.  Being jaundiced as I am about any propaganda coming from the secularized world, and a world that cares nothing about premarital virginity, I suspect that the "conventional wisdom" is exaggerated (to help women concoct lies about themselves, and to "slap" men to whom such things are important), but not entirely false.  Think of the non-Western cultures that demand premarital examination, and the consequences for women in those cultures who have lost or damaged their hymens through no fault of their own.