I think critics have a very hard time, collectively, are drawn to moving and emotional stories. But they also, collectively, do a poor job at being able to separate earned emotional stories from pandering schmaltz. I admit that I'm probably on the wrong side myself sometimes (I think Parenthood worked until the very end . . . . . .) I feel safe making a collective judgment because there is a pretty well documented herd mentality here. Not what some people would say where critics are all biased morons, but rather that I think most people go in giving something the benefit of the doubt, form a provisional conclusion, and then through talking with others or reading others that they respect, update this conclusion. Bayesian reasoning. And that would lead you to this same kind of thing where people cluster around generally accepted wisdom because it reinforces their first take. I have specifically noticed this when it comes to being able to call out stuff that is just over the top emotionally manipulative. It's also something people will inoculate against over time as well, so to some extent it reflects TV's relative immaturity as a medium compared to film.
Then again, critics thought Go Ask Alice was a devastating portrayal of teenage experience and drugs rather than a hackeneyed anti-drug propaganda piece written by someone with you better believe at least 10 pet cats. And most of the major TV critics are actually on the older end--Sepinwall is in his 40s! So it could just be that everyone is suckered into teenage tragedy porn. "Oh This Really Tells A Story About What It Is Like To Be A Teenager" why are you saying this you were a teenager when Eisenhower was president
I say this having not seen 13 Reasons Why but being genuinely mortified by reading a summary of the novel.