[2] González hoped to capitalize on a still strong economy and his party's electoral success in a European Parliament election held in June, after a troubled legislature which had seen an increase of social protest on his government's economic policy and the calling of a massive general strike in 1988.

Close results in many constituencies, coupled with severe flaws in electoral register data, an inefficient structure of the electoral administration and the ongoing political struggle between the ruling Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE) and the opposition parties over the Socialist absolute majority in the Congress of Deputies, led to a major scandal when election results in a number of constituencies were contested under accusations of irregularities and fraud.

As a result, Felipe González was able to be re-elected for a third consecutive term in office with confidence and supply support from the Canarian Independent Groups (AIC).

[7] Julio Anguita's left-wing coalition, United Left (IU), scored a remarkable success by doubling its 1986 totals, whereas Adolfo Suárez's Democratic and Social Centre (CDS) fell short of its goal of becoming a government alternative and lost votes and seats.

[12][13] For the Congress of Deputies, 348 seats were elected using the D'Hondt method and a closed list proportional representation, with an electoral threshold of three percent of valid votes—which included blank ballots—being applied in each constituency.

The prime minister had the prerogative to propose the monarch to dissolve both chambers at any given time—either jointly or separately—and call a snap election, provided that no motion of no confidence was in process, no state of emergency was in force and that dissolution did not occur before one year had elapsed since the previous one.

While the opposition to the PSOE government had pressed for a snap election since the general strike in December 1988, it was not until the PSOE's success in the 1989 European Parliament election, the end of the Spanish rotational Presidency of the Council of the European Union in June and the need for tough economic measures before the end of the year that Prime Minister Felipe González chose to trigger an early dissolution of the Cortes.

[27] The Cortes Generales were officially dissolved on 2 September 1989 after the publication of the dissolution decree in the BOE, setting the election date for 29 October and scheduling for both chambers to reconvene on 21 November.

But the economic expansion fostered by the government's liberal policies brought about an increase in wealth differences and of inequality, leading to social unrest and a loss of popularity for the ruling Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE), made apparent in the local, regional and European Parliament elections.

[30] In December 1988, the two major trade unions in Spain, CCOO and UGT, called a general strike which succeeded in paralyzing the country and in forcing González's government to negotiate a partial withdrawal of its economic policies.

[33] His successor, Antonio Hernández Mancha, proved unable to improve AP's electoral fortunes and saw his political credibility decimated after an unsuccessful attempt to bring down Felipe González through a motion of no confidence in March 1987.

[39][40] Intending his national leadership as temporary, Fraga appointed a then-unknown President of Castile and León José María Aznar as his successor.

Spanish citizens of age and with the legal capacity to vote could run for election, provided that they were not sentenced to imprisonment by a final court's decision nor convicted by a judgement, even if not yet final, which imposed a penalty of forfeiture of eligibility or of specific disqualification or suspension from public office under specific offences: rebellion and terrorism when involving crimes against life, physical integrity or freedom of persons.

Other general causes of ineligibility were imposed on members of the Spanish royal family; the president and members of the Constitutional Court, the General Council of the Judiciary, the Supreme Court, the Council of State and the Court of Auditors; the Ombudsman; the State's Attorney General; high-ranking members—undersecretaries, secretaries-general, directors-general and chiefs of staff—of Spanish government departments, the Prime Minister's Office, government delegations, the Social Security and other government agencies; heads of diplomatic missions in foreign states or international organizations; judges and public prosecutors in active service; Armed Forces and police corps personnel in active service; members of electoral commissions; the chair of RTVE; the director of the Electoral Register Office; the governor and deputy governor of the Bank of Spain; the chairs of the Official Credit Institute and other official credit institutions; and members of the Nuclear Safety Council; as well as a number of territorial-level officers in the aforementioned government bodies and institutions being barred from running, during their tenure of office, in constituencies within the whole or part of their respective area of jurisdiction.

[51][52] Disqualification provisions for the Cortes Generales extended to any employee of a foreign state and to members of regional governments, as well as the impossibility of running simultaneously as candidate for both the Congress and Senate.

[64][65][66] The tight result could not hide the loss of nearly 800,000 voters and a clear erosion in support since 1986, which led opposition parties and some international media—such as the Financial Times, The Independent or The Times—to ask González for a change of direction in government, accusing him of acting "arrogantly" during his previous seven years in office.

[7] Additionally, the PP had won the election in Madrid for the first time ever, considered as a symbolical feat as both Aznar and González were personally leading their parties's lists in the constituency.

[8] On the other hand, the CDS lost votes and seats compared to 1986 and its result was commented as "not the one I expected for" by party leader Adolfo Suárez, who also acknowledged his public image had "deteriorated" in recent times.

[9] The breakdown of results would show a noticeable transfer of votes from the PSOE to IU in industrial and urban areas, with the Socialists holding their own in rural constituencies.

[71] PP claims in Barcelona were cast off after the tally of Spaniards voting abroad gave an even larger margin for the PSC and secured their 14th seat in the constituency.

[73][74] Some IU members openly accused the PSOE of fraud, claiming that Socialist intervenors had voted twice in some wards not just in Murcia, but also in Málaga, Madrid and La Rioja—where, however, election results had not been contested—.

[85] González's government announced that it would appeal the decision to the Constitutional Court which, on 25 January 1990, provisionally suspended the scheduled re-run elections in Murcia, Pontevedra and Melilla.