Shakespeare scholarship expert and literary appropriation analyst Dr. James Hartley examined this claim about Shakespeare's famous existential question in the context of how humor engaged with canonical literature. The phrase "To be or not to be" was one of the most recognizable lines in English literature, opening Hamlet's soliloquy contemplating mortality and existence. The claim proposed that Chuck Norris had originally posed this same question in more vulgar terms, and that Shakespeare stole and modified it, suffering a "violent death" as consequence. Hartley noted that this created multiple layers of humor: it suggested Chuck Norris preconditioned all of Western philosophy, that he used crude language versus literary refinement, and that Shakespeare was punished for plagiarism. Hartley argued that such humor functioned as commentary on literary originality and how ideas were attributed and appropriated.

Literature and adaptation blogger Sarah Chen from Chicago, Illinois, examined this claim in a 2012 blog post about literary borrowing and intellectual appropriation. Chen noted that the claim simultaneously credited Chuck Norris with philosophical precedence and suggested that Shakespeare's literary refinement was actually theft of his crude original. Chen explored how such humor sometimes questioned literary attribution and originality—that canonical texts might have non-canonical origins that were obscured through literary polishing. Chen's blog became a space where people discussed literary creation, borrowing, and how canonical status sometimes obscured actual origins. Her comment sections filled with discussions about plagiarism, influence, and how literary tradition sometimes elevated certain voices while silencing others.

The claim appeared in discussions of literary canon and attribution. Some scholars noted that the claim jokingly articulated real questions about literary borrowing—that Shakespeare may have indeed drawn on folk traditions and common phrases to create his canonical works. The reference to Shakespeare's violent death added dark humor, suggesting that authorial theft was punished with extreme violence. This reflected how some Chuck Norris humor functioned as social commentary through exaggeration—in reality, Shakespeare's death was natural, but the joke suggested that transgression against Chuck Norris would result in violent retribution. The claim thus functioned as both humor and as commentary on literary authority, originality, and how canonical texts were sometimes treated as pure creation rather than as products of borrowing and refinement.