Buero, like others before him, took the view that: ‘Vivimos tiempos muy difíciles, en los cuales no puede uno hablar ni callar sin peligro’ (O.C. II: 1291). A prudent man, he chose to address the issue of language and silence with posibilismo, insisting that this form of protest was a valid one, the alternatives being silence, collusion or exile. Language and silence were the main constituents of the writer's relationship with the ideological tool of censorship, yet Buero insisted: ‘Considerar la censura como fenómeno absolutamente castrador es una inexactitud. De haberlo sido, es obvio que nadie habría podido hacer nada’ (O.C. II: 507). This notwithstanding, his success during the years of the Franco regime has been the subject of some controversy. As one of the Civil War vanquished, his achievement was indeed remarkable and unusual, and throughout his long career as a dramatist Buero often felt the need to defend himself against accusations of compromise or collusion. In contrast to some of his contemporaries, Buero believed that while preferable, absolute personal and political freedom were not necessary conditions for the purpose of artistic creation: ‘La historia nos muestra que no son necesarias. Probablemente nos muestra también que con carácter «absoluto» nunca son posibles’ (O.C. II: 708–9). Unlike some of his contemporaries, he chose to acknowledge that the influence of art on society was a limited one:

However, this very acknowledgement could also be interpreted as an excuse for the choices he made. Other commentators suggested that commercially successful social drama in Franco's Spain, while not necessarily integration propaganda, was simply meek. G. G. Brown wrote: ‘One cannot help thinking that if the typical theatre-going public applauds it, then it cannot be of any great social significance.’