Spain was western because aside from following legal codes directly descended from Roman jurisprudence, as is the case with the majority of continental states with a mixture between Napoleonic (which itself is another direct descendant of the Roman model) and Germanic law, while Russia ironically only became more European in its after the Revolution displaced tsarism's archaic micture of Roman, canon and local feudal laws with a civil code based on the precedents of Europe. France meanwhile is the archetypical western country outside of the Anglosphere, having served for centuries as the center of artistic and intellectual currents (honestly, the hub of salons would pushed for redical social change with or without the the factors that led to the French revolution), and since the time of Napoleon, it and Germany have been the models for western based civil codes with imitators as far out as South America (Yes, Chile borrowed more from Prussia than just its military discipline.) and post 19th century eastern Asia.
The existence of Al-Andalus, as well as the general concept of Islamic civilization, demonstrates that just because particular culture had some of its ideas originate in the west, from Islam's basis in Abrahamism to the efforts of the Golden Age to preserve and improve upon ancient Greek scholarship, doesn't automatically mean it will be accepted on equal footing with the nations and political alliances who conventionally get to set the limits of what is western. In premodern times, the Islamic world was rejected on the fact that it wasn't a fusion of Christian and Greco-Roman; more recently the lack of an 18th century style Enlightenment as westerners understand it has been used as shorthand to justify othering the near east and imperialize both it and other cultures which don't meet Euro-American standards of developed. Al-Andalus then is simply a way to show that the "liberal tolerance" the west has historically prided itself on is neither unique to the present day developed world nor uniquely rooted in our values.
As for Russia, the reason I conflate liberalization with westernization is becuase any attempt to do so throughout the Empire and beyond would inevitably be tangled with questions over Russian identity as well as how much to take from the conventional west while maintaining the status of Russia as a distinct political force. Western culture does not automatically lead to a stable state or to political liberty; otherwise we would have to concede that pre-1945 Germany, whether as the literal and political battleground for rival European powers or as a model for law, military and industry during the height of Prussia, was simply not western. We'd also have to assume the same for pre-unification Naples and Sicily, given their less cultural influence when compared to the north and center of Italy as well as their shared history of being passed around by Catholic dynasties like a colony in the Americas. A fully "western" Russia would essentially be one that has set aside Slavophilia and Russian nihilism as serious political contenders in favor of the currents of electoral politics that dominate Euro-America. If Russian simply wanted to "westernize" like Japan or Thailand, the result would be an attempt to adopt western economics and styles of government while retaining its Orthodox character, much like what the Federaion has tried to do today or what happened in the Empire of Japan.
