The English, later British colonies in North America, particularly those North of what would become the Mason-Dixon line were very different from anything existing in Spanish or Portuguese America. New England for instance was almost entirely composed of English settlers and their descendants, with small numbers of Scots and Irish in Maine and New Hampshire. As a result of the indigenous population had been reduced to a tiny minority, New England was far more ethnically homogeneous than anywhere in Latin America, and could be said to resemble a more simplified version of England. Consisting of largely yeomanry and craftsmen, where around 90% of males were literate, the settlers were largely indistinguishable from their peers in England. As a result, the settlers there looked to England, particularly to London, adopting its mannerisms, art and architecture along with philosophy long after independence. New England, for a long while was the cultural hub of the nascent United States, with universities such as Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth and Brown, often borrowing from English institutions. As a result, even American English remained much closer grammatically to dialects spoken in England than say Brazilian Portuguese. American English incorporated fewer than 100 words of indigenous origin and even fewer of African origin than did Brazilian Portuguese. The fact that Britain not only remained a world power, but was the major world power for over a century after the United States gaining independence also led to the elite of America being able to admire Great Britain. This contrasts with Spain and Portugal, which were relegated to minor players on the world stage once they had lost their American colonies.
The further south one got, the closer the British colonies could resembled what can be termed as the resource-extraction colonies that predominated the Caribbean and Latin America, though even here the social cleavages were not as extreme. In the deep south white population remained far higher than that of the majority of Latin America, and much higher than in the West Indies, where whites were usually less than 10% of the population. This is important, not because they were "white" but rather because even the poorest whites of Anglo-America had a chance to escape economic hardship. Though Spanish America and especially Brazil attracted large numbers of European settlers (in some case larger in numbers than English North America), the Europeans remained a minority of the population sitting at the top of the socioeconomic pyramid. South Carolina, which had the largest non-white component with 56% of its population being classified as white in 1790, had an economy that was far less dependent on resource extraction than Peru, Jamaica or Brazil. Contrast this with Peru, where a mere 13% of the population was classified as Spaniard (Creoles and Peninsulares) in 1792, with only 1.5% being Peninsulares. For New Spain around 18% were Creoles and around 1% were Peninsulares. With the exception of Rio de La Plata, Europeans and their descendants were far outnumbered by indigenous people along with smaller numbers of mestizos along with African slaves (particularly in Peru and the Caribbean) along with mulattoes. What developed was a socially and economically stratified society where a tiny elite held most of the wealth and power, and most people had no actual ties to Spain whatsoever.
Likewise in Portuguese America, though there were 1 million people classified as white by the close of the 18th century, however they were outnumbered by the African and Mulatto population which numbered over 2 million. This was particularly true in the Northeast and the mining areas where African slaves performed almost the entirety of the manual labour. Also, though Indians had been largely enslaved or killed, there were mestizos, many of whom intermarried with the European and African population. Coupled with a largely illiterate population, the Brazilian Portuguese incorporated around 2,000 words of Tupi origin, also hundreds of words from various West African dialects, and if one hears Portuguese spoken by Africans in Angola or Cape Verde it does share similarities to that spoken in Brazil, particularly the vernacular (not the formal written language). Spoken Brazilian Portuguese often resembles a creole dialect, often ignoring grammatical rules of European Portuguese, a common trait of creoles spoken in slave societies with low levels of literacy (like African American Vernacular English). The South of Brazil can be called an exception to the rule as it was populated by Portuguese settlers initially, and Europeans became the majority of the population, and this was followed by the arrival of Italian and a smaller number of Germans and other nationalities from Europe. Perhaps because of the absence of having been and economy dominated by plantation agriculture and slavery, the region's income inequality along with its development is much higher than Northeastern Brazil.
Northern North America, along with Australia, Argentina and Uruguay, and New Zealand are really the only settler colonies where by and large Europeans became a majority and were able to replicate the social norms and customs of their motherland. In Latin America, some people still say that if only their countries had been colonised by Britain, France or the Netherlands rather than Spain or Portugal that their societies would have been better developed. This ignores the fact that most of the climate in these regions was largely hostile to developing a European yeomanry as in North America. Also, the ability of the indigenous populations in areas like Peru or Mexico to resist disease means that the British, French or Dutch would have had to resort to mass genocide, or to have treated the inhabitants as equals (something unlikely judging by their track record elsewhere). In areas like Brazil, the Dutch imported far more African slaves than European immigrants during their brief tenure and one only has to look at South Africa to see the results of Dutch and British rule in a resource-rich region where a European settler relies on the labour non-white inhabitants. I would argue that the economic structure along with the social stratification of a colony had more long-term effects on a region than the colonial power.