In the history of drama, censorship has been one of the obstacles theaters face. Particularly, politically controversial issues on stage can cause governmental opposition, but they are also some of the main sources that may promise a box office hit, which causes the tensions between governmental censorship and theatrical representation. In effect, the government and the theater enjoyed a symbiotic relationship in Early Modern England, but censorship was very real and serious as well. Presumably, then, Nathaniel Lee was aware of such tensions when writing Lucius Junius Brutus during a time in which the conflict between the Tories and Whigs over the Exclusion Bill grew more intense. However, his play faced governmental opposition, though no one knows clearly Lee’s attitude toward politics. Thus this paper attempts to examine politically sensitive elements in Brutus that caused opposition from the Lord Chamberlain. On the verge of the critical moment determining whether or not James would be excluded from the succession, Lee’s dramatization of the expulsion of Rome’s last king and the formation of the republic incurred suspicion as to whether Brutus was political propaganda on behalf of a certain party. Lee explores political turmoil in his deeper investigation into the justification for the revolution. In particular, the main characters’ political cause, morality, and fate reflect the mixture of light and shade engendered by the revolution, which is analogous to the ongoing tension witnessed by Lee’s contemporary audiences. Therefore, it is noteworthy that Lee maintains his balance in his dramatic rendering of Whiggism by staging the limitations of parliamentary government and the central figures of the revolution in Lucius Junius Brutus.