I remember learning in school that Franco was a fascist dictator, but I've noticed that Spain isn't usually considered when people talk about fascism- they only mention Germany and Italy. I was wondering if this is because of me learning bad history or because he's just not as much in the public eye, because of Spain not directly fighting in the second world war. Thank you for your time!
There is a debate on the subject. It generally comes down to how one defines "fascist."
One thing that isn't up for debate is that Franco was supported by Spain's fascist party--the Falange. While the Falange's election returns in 1936 were abysmal (I don't recall the percentage that Preston gave, this wikipedia page lists under 1% which is in the ballpark of what I recalled) Falangists were overrepresented in the armed rebellion and suppression that began in 1936. Their leader, José Antonio Primo de Rivera, was in Madrid when the revolt began. He was arrested and put in prison. In November of 1936 he was tried and executed. Franco subsumed the Falange into his own hierarchy, and later took the title of "El Caudillo" or "The Leader," which certainly sounds like the titles taken by Mussolini and Hitler. Accordingly, many historians mark Franco down in the "fascist" category.
However, Franco was different from Hitler and Mussolini in many important ways. He came from the establishment--he was a general in the army after all. He allied himself with monarchists and the Spanish Catholic Church. These were actions that made him and his government different in important ways from the other fascist examples.
Personally, I don't think the label fully fits. I think it ignores the specific circumstances in 1930's Spain, and I think that the generalization of fascist is not particularly useful in examining Franco. (To be clear, though, I am no fan of Franco. He and his regime were murderous and totalitarian autoritarian. (Edit: I meant to type authoritarian, not totalitarian. Basically, Franco was a bad bad man. Thank you to /u/GoLokiGoGo End Edit.) I also like the term "barbarous" used by Jose M. Sanchez)
As I recall, Hugh Thomas and Antony Beevor generally use the term "Nationalist," as does Jose M. Sanchez. Paul Preston seems to prefer "rebel" to emphasize that the Spanish Civil War began with a military coup.
Overall, I don't think you learned bad history, as the subject is still being debated from time to time.
I would argue that it was an ultra-conservative dictatorship that put heavy emphasis on religion and monarchy.
The Franco regime was littered with Fascist paraphernalia like, as mentioned, the Falange (Phalanx) and though much smaller, the CEDA who were deeply inspired by Italian Fascism.
Its misleading to think of the Spanish civil war as a war between fascists and communists/anarchists. This was only part of it. It was essentially a war between modernisers and traditionalists.
The Republic was a constitutional monarchy that was prepared to give some or all power back to Catalonia and the Basque country, radically reduce the power of the church and offer more power to workers groups and unions.
The Nationalists were a group of various actors, including a large part of the army and navy, royalists, catholics, conservatives, carlists and fascists who prefered the status quo.
The reason why it has since been referred to as a war between fascists and communists is because it became a proxy war between the Axis powers and the Soviet Union. The UK and France expended a lot of energy staying neutral for fear of sparking a wider conflict that they were ill prepared to commit to.