Oh I absolutely hate it when a story does the "they're expected to be evil by society, and guess what -- they're right!" because that just teaches a very questionable lesson. So, because the people you hang around think someone's wrong because of a singular label on them, that means they're likely wrong? That's asinine!
I also agree that "romance", and I use drama finger quotes for this, is overdone in most stories for younger audiences. Even as a child I was endlessly annoyed that there was almost always some shoehorned-in romance that was included for no reason other than because it was expected. If it's not going to contribute something to the story and the story doesn't revolve around it, I don't really see a reason to have it. In a story like Cinderella, sure, it's a major aspect of the story. In Captain Fauxhawk and the Edgelords, probably not.
This also brings up general pet peeves, but I have always -- always -- hated the trend in stories for young audiences, handing out awards practically guaranteed if you put some meaningless death in your book. Kill off a character in a children's book and have them learn the "hard lesson" of death, and you'll almost always win some critical acclaim and usually an award. I despise that trend that persists to this day. Admittedly, I'm very picky now about killing off characters, but I find it almost never done well in stories for children, and I hated it as a child. It was always shoehorned, awkward, and usually meaningless...and as a cat lover, I was so burned by stories that needlessly killed off usually titular cats that one day -- in second grade! -- I asked the librarian for help on finding a book about cats. It had some dramatic title that sounded like one of those, and I just frankly asked her, "the cat dies, doesn't it" and she was surprised, and chuckled, and said "well, yes...let's find you a better book."
If by age 7 I could spot abuse of that, I think it's well past time we move on!