Those opposing the persons insisting that Shotoku Taishi was a fictitious figure include: Mitsuo TOYAMA, who wrote "Shotoku Taishi ha Naze Tenno ni Narenakattanoka" (Why Shotoku Taishi could not become the emperor) (2000); Kazu UEHARA, who wrote "Sekaishijo no Shotoku Taishi - Toyo no Ai to Chie" (Shotoku Taishi in the world history - Compassion and Wisdom of the East) (2002); Kojiro NAOKI, who wrote 'Umayatoo no Seijiteki-chii ni Tsuite' (About the political status of Umayatoo); Masaaki UEDA, who wrote 'Rekishi kara Mita Taishi Zo no Kyojitsu' (Fact and Fiction of the figure of Taishi from the historical view) (contained in the "Shotoku Taishi no Jitsuzo to Genzo" [Fact and Fiction of Shotoku Taishi]) (2001); Masato SONE, who wrote "Shotoku Taishi to Asuka Bukkyo" (Shotoku Taishi and Asuka Buddhism) (2007); and Tei MORITA, who wrote "Suikocho to Shotoku Taishi" (the Court of Empress Suiko and Shotoku Taishi) (2005).
聖徳太子虚構説に対する反論としては、遠山美都男『聖徳太子はなぜ天皇になれなかったのか』（2000年）、上原和『世界史上の聖徳太子-東洋の愛と智慧』（2002年）、直木孝次郎「厩戸王の政治的地位について」、上田正昭「歴史からみた太子像の虚実」（『聖徳太子の実像と幻像』所収）（2001年）、曽根正人『聖徳太子と飛鳥仏教』（2007年）、森田悌『推古朝と聖徳太子』（2005年）などがある。