So far, the question about the difference between the terms from the title was asked several times here and on ELU but I'm not asking about the grammatical difference my question is about semantics.
Please let me make it clearer:
In my language, there's a clear distinction between the terms so as to that they cannot semantically be used interchangeable as due to carries a positive connotation whereas because of carries a negative one. Due to is closer to owing to or thanks to. This said, in my language, you cannot say:
I feel unhappy due to/owing to the fact that I broke my leg.
It is as if I were to say:
I feel unhappy thanks to the fact that I broke my leg.
It is correct to say:
I feel unhappy because I broke my leg.
Inverse, you cannot say:
I'm glad because you came.
So you would correctly say:
I'm glad due/owing/thanks to your coming.
Despite all the above, in my language, many well educated people journalists, TV show people, etc. make this mistake when using those terms. It is actually a common mistake.
I didn't see hitherto such a distinction in English which is why I wonder if there is one or, like in my language, people don't care too much about their use.