No. It's a series on conjectures which Oxfordians would like people to accept as a theory but it cannot withstand even elementary scrutiny when looked at as a whole. A theory, in the academic world, is a hypothesis for which there is wide or tacit acceptance. Oxfordian core claims do not meet any standards of academic rigour. They are fond of quoting Supreme Court Justice Stevens, who made a couple of supportive remarks in the famous 1987 mock trial. Yet his summary was "the Oxfordian case suffers from not having a single coherent theory". Things have got worse, not better since then.
There is, for example, still no remotely satisfying explanation of why a third of Will's work was written after Oxford's death.
Oxfordians suppose that the plays which appeared after Oxford died were all written but lay unperformed somewhere in a drawer. They were then drip-fed to the Elizabethan audience by a play-broker, anxious to defend Oxford's anonymity.
The harder you think about it, the less it makes sense. But Oxfordians are not looking to support their case with common sense or truth.
They are merely interested in scenarios which fit the facts, however improbably, and are difficult to disprove.