This is called "text recycling" or even "self-plagiarism" and generally frowned upon by editors. It's better to avoid it as much as possible, even if it results in more work, particularly for non-native speakers of English. Too much overlap can result in rejection or later retraction, where "too much" is at the discretion of the editor. You are also very likely to annoy reviewers if they notice the overlap with your previous publications.
The Committee on Publication Ethics has the following guidelines for journal editors:
When should action be considered?
Text recycling can take many forms, and editors should consider which
parts of the text have been recycled. Duplication of data is likely to
always be considered serious (and should be dealt with according to
the COPE guidelines for duplicate publications [1,2]. Use of similar
or identical phrases in methods sections where there are limited ways
to describe a common method, however, is not uncommon. In such cases,
an element of text recycling is likely to be unavoidable in further
publications using the same method. Editors should use their
discretion when deciding how much overlap of methods text is
acceptable, considering factors such as whether authors have been
transparent and stated that the methods have already been described in
detail elsewhere and provided a citation. Duplication of background
ideas in the introduction may be considered less significant than
duplication of the hypothesis, discussion, or conclusions.
When significant overlap is identified between two or more articles,
editors should consider taking action. Several factors may need to be
taken into account when deciding whether the overlap is considered
Text recycling in a submitted manuscript
Text recycling may be identified in a submitted article by editors or
reviewers, or by the use of plagiarism detection software, e.g.
CrossCheck. Editors should consider the extent of the overlap when
deciding how to act. Where overlap is considered to be minor, authors
may be asked to re-write overlapping sections, and cite their previous
article(s). More significant overlap may result in rejection of the
manuscript. Where the overlap includes data, Editors should handle
cases according to the COPE flowchart for dealing with suspected
redundant publication in a submitted manuscript .