Until the 1870s it was the only example of a large nation managing to maintain a stable democracy (at least in its minimalistic sense as a system without class barriers to political participation) in the modern world, which certainly placed it to the "left" of most European countries at the time. Third Republic France joined it after 1871, with some fits and starts, and then most of Europe only embraced democracy after WW1.
Swedish and Finnish democratic periods had much more freer elections all in the middle of the 1700s. The North German Confederation had a more progressive government if we were to look at voting rights. This is not even looking at the fact that the the Labor parties of the late 1800s were defining what was considered egalitarian at the time and could be seen as major movements in Europe regardless of suffrage or not.
In 1890, the male population of New Zealand stood at 355,190. 115,886 votes were cast, so 32.6% of males voted (presumably a higher fraction of adult men).
In 1890, the male population of the US stood at 32,067,880. Roughly 9.75 million votes were cast in the 1890 house elections (a 30.4% turnout). 11,383,320 votes were cast in the 1888 presidential election and 12,068,037 votes were cast in 1892, so an average of 36.5%.
These are pretty close, but your claim is definitely wrong. The US had broader democratic participation in the 1890s than New Zealand, a tiny island with a broad franchise.
The other claims are bizarre. The old Swedish system gave the vote to about 6% of the population, and had frequent periods of autocratic monarchy. The North German Confederation existed for five years and was replaced by the German Empire, which had a malapportioned lower house and wide aristocratic power. The point about Labor parties is a total non sequitur.
