As far as I know, the only previous universal Catholic Catechism (as opposed to a local text) was the Catechism of the Council of Trent. I suppose in a sense one could say that the historic creeds were mini-catechisms. There is no substitute for actually reading the documents of Vatican II, but a good book about that council is John O'Malley's, <em>What Happened at Vatican II</em>.
Probably the best one-stop history of the Council that I'd recommend is John W. O'Malley SJ's "What Happened at Vatican II." Very fair, factual, engaging, not polemical or ideological, and a great mix of broad, well-flowing narrative and interesting details and tidbits.
I never studied the liturgical reform in its own. I’ve always studied it in regards to the rest of the council.
My favorite book about the council is
What Happened at Vatican II https://www.amazon.com/dp/0674047494/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_glt_fabc_V0754QAQXKWCHNXKS4AA
I’m sure that O’Malley has citations to works about the liturgical reform.
My apologies that I can’t offer more as my personal expertise isn’t in the history of liturgy.
This is a HUGE question.
I’d suggest doing some reading on your own.
This is the book that I’d suggest most highly.
What Happened at Vatican II https://www.amazon.com/dp/0674047494/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_S01GFbJX11YGH
It was the largest ecumenical council that the church has ever had. It was a pastoral council that was called to help the church better continue her mission in the modern and contemporary world.
You can read what St. John XXIII said the council was to be in his address when he opened the council.
https://fwdioc.org/solemn-opening-of-council-10-11-62-john-XXIII-english.pdf
The fact that immediately after the Council we had the split between the Concilio journal and Communio journal (one having a more liberal interpretation and one having a more conservative interpretation) should be a clue that, unlike previous councils, God wants us to sort out this issue of interpretation. It's not a "problem", but part of divine providence and divine pedagogy.
And I come down more on the side of Fr. John O'Malley, that there was a major change with V2, and that this is not a full blown rupture, but a major change nonetheless. The medium is the message, and the textual genre of V2 is completely different from all prior councils. Prior councils used precise definition and canons, V2 used the language of pastoral diplomacy and panegyric. If that's not a major change, I'm not sure what is.
I highly recommend the following two works to get a better grasp on the situation. https://www.amazon.com/What-Happened-at-Vatican-II/dp/0674047494
It's my hunch that Synodality may be the Holy Spirit's way of reconciling these divergent interpretations while preventing full-blown schism.
There was an idea that didn't take off at V2 known as "collegiality" because it was deemed too close to the condemned view of "conciliarism." It seems like Synodality is a revived form of collegiality, and would once again give local bishops even more influence over how things are done. In short, Rome is decentralizing and moving back to being something like an umpire (but, and I may be wrong, isn't that how we operated for the first one thousand years?).
So decentralizing allows local bishops' some flexibility in addressing these peculiar local situations. It makes bishops more than just a rubber stamp.
This could give more context https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collegiality_in_the_Catholic_Church
Finally, for a response to the critics of V2 on the liturgy, see Fr. John Baldovin, who gives IMO the critics a fair hearing. https://www.amazon.com/Reforming-Liturgy-Response-Critics-Pueblo/dp/0814662196/ref=mp_s_a_1_fkmr0_1?crid=VFOHMNN1BXYG&keywords=baldovin+reform+of+the+liturgy&qid=1640849274&sprefix=baldovin+reform+of+the+kitur%2Caps%2C462&sr=8-1-fkmr0