if it wasn't for X we wouldn't have Y

I think you might be able to force fit a fallacy in here somewhere, or maybe even find one that fits nicely for specific claims. But for the most part, these statements are true/false statements. Remember that a false statement is not necessarily a fallacy, and a true statement can still be fallacious.

"If it wasn't for Edison we wouldn't have the light bulb."

One could argue that this is factually incorrect (see the history of the light bulb). We had the light bulb before Edison; he just got the credit for commercializing it. But it depends on what exactly is meant by us "having" the light bulb (i.e., the existence of it or the commercialization of it?) What if they did mean the commercialization of the light bulb? The inference is that Edison was the only person that could have possibly commercialized it. This is a somewhat absurd position to take, especially given the technology that already existed at the time (my opinion) but I really can't see any clear fallacy.

There can also be perfectly legitimate and true statements that follow the "if it wasn't for X we wouldn't have Y" format:

"If it wasn't for my dog barking at 5am, I would have slept longer."

So it is not about the form of the argument, but the content where you may or may not be able to find a fallacy.

Yes, it's called false dichotomy !