I can't understand why the phrase beneath is written that way.
"She needed someone that would love her for more than just one night"
I've seen the same construction in other cases. Hope someone can help me.
I can't understand why the phrase beneath is written that way.
"She needed someone that would love her for more than just one night"
I've seen the same construction in other cases. Hope someone can help me.
This is a narrative of a past "event" (broadly construed).
She needed someone that† would love her for more than just one night.
Let's go back in time and describe it from a contemporary's vantage point:
She needs someone who will love her for more than one night.
What she needs is someone who will continue to love her. Simple loves would not clearly convey the idea of continuation expressed by future tense will love.
The word would is the past tense of will. The narration of the past causes a shift of tense. Now we are looking back at them in the past as they look towards their future. will love => would love.
†I don't like using "that" with persons, though some people do.
The verb tense of would love is Simple conditional, meaning it's not reality, but hypothetical. In this particular case it's something she wishes were the case, but isn't.
Based on your name I'll assume you speak Spanish, the translation would be:
Necesitaba alguien que la amaría por más de una noche.