You can certainly run Access without SQL Server, using native Access tables.
However,
SQL Server can handle much more data than Access (which is limited to
2GB per database).
Using SQL Server, much of the data processing can be done on the server
machine; if you have a high volume of complex calculations, for example, you
can use a single dedicated server, instead of needing to upgrade all your
front end machines.
SQL Server offers a much higher level of security than Access.
For WAN connections, or over the Internet, SQL Server is significantly
more reliable.
SQL Server databases can be kept in operation 24-7, while an Access
database must be taken off-line for regular compaction.
SQL Server provides much more reliable disaster recovery than Access.
SQL Server can support many more simultaneous networked users than
Access. (Access has a hard upper limit of 255, but often fails above 100;
40 is often cited as a "safe" number, but bad Access apps can fail with only
a dozen or so.)
What it adds up to for me is this:
If it's not using huge amounts of data, or used by many users
If it doesn't have to be available 24-7,
If it's not so "mission critical" that it's a disaster to have to
restore from backup,
Then the extra overhead of SQL Server is not justified.
HTH