The increasing inclusion of students with disabilities in regular classes still leads to debate and many advocate for full inclusion of all students. Arguments for full inclusion are generally rights-based, but proponents also claim research supports the effectiveness of full inclusion over specialist provision for all students with disabilities. In this article, we analyse and critique the use of the research literature in an Australian advocacy paper as an example of the broad claims made concerning full inclusion. We examine the extent to which the sources used provide conclusive evidence about the merits of full inclusion. We find the advocacy paper relies heavily on opinion and non-peer-reviewed literature, with little use of quantitative research that compares outcomes for students in different settings. We suggest that policymakers should treat the conclusions drawn in this paper cautiously and give due consideration to the literature that is not supportive of full inclusion.