Actually you have to take into account that after the 1867 compromise, Austria became the Austro-Hungarian dual monarchy with each entity having a huge autonomy and there were major difference in their political system:

For example, in Transleithania, Hungarian was the only official language and because of the voting system that emphasizes the land owners , the Hungarians had 90% of the sieges in their parliament. There is a magyarization process of the administration, in the public instruction and political system. The Slovaks were maintained as poor rural population with little instruction and investment (the infant mortality remains very high, limiting the Slovak population growth). So that there were indeed a strong segregation between the Hungarian and non-Hungarian population of Transleithania.

Whereas it was quite the opposite in the Cisleithania, (the administrative map is more interesting as it seems, just look how much small admisitrative entities the Austrian part compared to the Hungarian one).

The article 19 of the constitution of Cisleithania proclaimed the equality of all ethnic groups, their inalienable right to preserve and to cultivate their language and nationality. The languages used in the regions are recognized as equal by the State in the field of school, administration and public life. The minorities were well represented in the diet, where there was no official languages. (Thus, one fun game from the Czech parliamentarian was to paralyze the the diet by delivering very long speeches in their native language that nobody else could understand). In the early 20th century, there were a latent parliamentary crisis and obstruction because of the question of the nationalities but the political oppositions tended to overcome the national oppositions (liberals, socialists, conservative would side together by political ideology more than nationality)