110V was the standard in most european countries before switching to 220V (which became 230V to 240V depending on the country.)
Sure switching to a higher voltage allowed lower currents, so lower losses. Beyond that, I think there were studies showing that 110V was actually more dangerous.
But people in the US were usually told the opposite.
While, for the same impedance, the current through your body would be twice as high with 220V as opposed to 110V - which was the main rationale invoked - and sure, the higher the current, the higher the risk. Right?
Now in those ranges, typically a few tens of mA unless your skin is very wet, it's mostly energy that matters, so the duration is key. I have consistently heard that on average, for people with no specific health condition, 220V was more likely to trigger a withdrawal reflex (thus a very short exposure), while 110V was more likely to trigger muscle tetany (thus longer exposure.) I have no paper right now to back this up though.
The real reason, in both cases though, is just likely to be purely economical.
All I can draw from my own experience is that I sure did get shocked quite a few times with 220V in my life and always got a strong withdrawal reflex with no more consequence than an elevated heart rate for a couple minutes.