Even the Expanse has fantastical elements like the protomolecule and the Epstein drive. The difference is that it is closer to classic science fiction authors like Asimov, Clarke or Niven in that this body of work tries hard to keep some grounding in extrapolated scientific models.

Star Wars doesn't even claim to attempt this. It is a world of entirely made up rules and places for the sake of the story. There is nothing wrong with that. But it completely misses this key feature of sci fi.

There isn't a very clear delineation between the two genres. Star Trek also crosses this line into pure fantasy pretty consistently (an anomaly that compells everybody to sing and eventually produces a Klingon boy band performance? Or one that gives everybody amnesia and turns them into actors in Shakespeare drama - costumes and all?).

Most science fiction is closer to Star Wars than The Expanse, and Star Wars is more grounded in plausible reality than Star Trek, which no one tags as "science fantasy." If Andor didn't have "Star Wars" branding, I don't think anyone would have a problem considering it science fiction in the grand tradition of a lot of MilSF.

I'm not saying the distinction doesn't exist - The Hobbit isn't SF and Ringworld isn't high fantasy, but I am saying that between the extremes, it's mostly just vibes. There is no objective reason not to consider Star Wars science fiction, some people just find the space wizards too silly (while having a bookshelf full of "The author's barely disguised fetish or hyperfixation but In Spaaaaace.")