As it says in the title!
It certainly appears so. Here's a previous answer of mine on the subject. To reorganise the chief points:
The battle was a defeat, yet it remained in the public consciousness as a paradigm of heroism, not futility. There must be some reason for this paradoxical view of the event.
The Spartans were a tiny minority of the Greek forces that died in the battle, yet by the 420s Herodotos reports having heard a list of the names of all the Spartan 300 -- no list of the Thespiaian or Theban dead. This suggests Spartan agency in determining the later reputation of the battle.
Sparta had extremely strong motives for casting themselves as the centrepiece of Greek resistence to the Persians:
first, with a view to prior history, to assure their preeminence over their old rival Argos, and thus hegemony as the dominant Dorian state in the Peloponnese;
second, with a view to current events, to ensure their preeminence over their new rival, Athens, and thus engineer their hegemony over the pan-Hellenic alliance.
Direct evidence of propagandising: we see
a hero cult to Leonidas established in Sparta;
a lyric ode by Simonides (PMG 531, omitting line 1) that celebrates Leonidas as a paradigm of heroism;
an elegiac ode composed by Simonides to celebrate the battle of Plataiai the following year (frs. eleg. 2-22 ed. West^(2)); that poem was composed very soon after the battle, in the years 479 to 477, meaning that it was commissioned for a commemorative celebration. Sparta and the Spartan general Pausanias hold preeminent places in the poem, indicating that the commissioning body was Spartan.
However, apparently there's room for disagreement. When I've heard the opposing view in seminars it was formulated as "I don't believe in the narrative of Spartans as masters of propaganda". Exactly how much weight that logic carries I'll leave up to you to decide.
I would imagine that the battle from the Persian War that was mostly frequently referenced by politicians is the victory at Salamis.