In England, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 led to the end of absolute monarchy in favor of a constitutional monarchy. Liberal philosophers such as John Locke had a great influence on how these events turned out.
Why didn't liberalism ever pick up in the same regard in Russia? The short-lived Russian Provisional Government indicates that there was not a lot of support for founding a republican society and the Communist Bolsheviks ended up with the majority support. Was this outcome due to a lack of liberal leaders like Vladmir Lenin or Leon Trotsky? Perhaps there was a mistrust of liberalism, which by the early 20th century had lost it's initial glamor?
Following the Revolution of 1905 Russia had become a constitutional monarchy with the creation of the Duma through the Bulygin Rescript. Why liberalism didn't last in Russia I think can be put down to the mixed experiences of the Duma.
Following the establishment of the Duma in the wake of the 1905 revolution, the proposal outlined by Bulygin ultimately satisfied none of the opposition groups. Further plans proposed by Sergeii Witte and favored by Nicholas also fail to satisfy the oppositions demands. The strike movement in Russia continued to grow and the Grand Duke threatens to shoot himself if Nic doesn't make concessions to the opposition. The government issues the October Manifesto, in which the Tsar was essentially dissolving some of his power. This still was short of what opposition demanded, due to strong links between the old government and this new proposal which leads to increased violence. This in turn lead to increased division between liberals and the government and within liberals themselves as their views on violence differed.
The Tsarist government largely backtracked from the October Manifesto however. The electoral law in December of 1905 results in disproportionate representation in the Duma, and still used indirect voting. The other big backtrack was the Fundamental Laws. This created the State Council which had powers equal to the Duma and both chambers would need to pass laws. However only 1/2 of the members were elected the rest were appointed directly by the Tsar. The other key part of the Fundamental Laws is Article 87 which allowed the government to rule by decree when the Duma was not in session. The Fundamental Laws went a long way to reaffirming the Tsar's authority and power and undermining the constitutional reforms that the Duma otherwise represented.
It not surprising then that scholars have called into question the extent that Russia was in fact a constitutional monarchy or not. R.B. McKean has argued that Russia was in fact a constitutional monarchy following 1905. On the other hand scholars like Sarah Badcock and Peter Waldron argue the opposite, that the Duma was ultimately only "a facade" and that the failings of the Duma from 1905-1917 discredited the constitutional experiment in Russia.
Whether or not the Duma was a shell of what it was supposed to be I think is somewhat secondary. What is key is the idea that the Duma experience discredited the constitutional experiment. The Tsarist regime through things like the Fundamental Laws continued to hold lots of power and continued to repress civil society in Russia. Divisions within the Duma also often prevented any meaningful cooperation between Russia's parliamentarians. Ultimately the state continually failed to make adjustments to cope with the rampant social changes and problems that industrialism posed in relation to the state's workers. Marxism was one alternative that had a long history in Russia and seemed to better fit worker demands. All of these tensions between workers and the state, divisions amongst liberals, and between opposition and the government were only exacerbated by the experience of WWI and pushed Russia closer to revolution.
Hope that helps!