I've read Stardust
and seen the movie. It's a romance. It has a fantasy-adventure setting, and it's not *only* a romance, unlike Harlequin or Mills & Boone stories where "boy meets girl; tensions ensue; everybody lives lustfully ever after" is the only thing going on. But the core plot is one of the classic romance tropes. (I don't want to go into detail and spoil it for those who'll be reading it soon.) If the romance were removed, the story would be impossible; the relationships are the driving force for the adventures.
Shards of Honor
is a military SF story with a romance in its center. The story would be different without the romance, but not impossible. I'd call it "romantic science fiction" rather than "a science fiction romance" (which doesn't mean I think it's inappropriate for February's choice; I'm happy to have broad categories instead of narrow ones). I suspect that in a more restrained society--Victorian era England or US, perhaps--it would read more firmly as a "romance;" the parts are all there, but it's more subtle than modern romance-genre books expect.
, which, I haven't read, I understand to be a creepy psychological study about obsession rather than "romance." Again, though, I'm willing for "romance" to cover "all stories with strong elements of romantic or sexual relationships," even if they're not the classic "meet other person, overcome obstacles together,
" style of story.
is a romance. It was hailed as an Epic Novel of Great Truths in the 70s; it's likely to come across as either a bit dated or wonderfully nostalgic now.
is on my do-not-read list; Gabaldon had some vile things to say about fanfiction
... although she admits that she based one of her own characters on Dr. Who. Authors who insist it's illegal and immoral for me to be artistically inspired by their works are off my readlist.