From a historical literary perspective, the origins of the Arthur legend is so shrouded in complete lack of information that people can make any wild conjecture they'd like, but from a textual evidence standpoint, no, there is no evidence suggesting an influence (because there's almost no evidence even showing the evolution process of the story, nor any evidence for a near-contemporary version of the story at all).

As to the purely literary trope of whether there are similarities in stories of sons killing their father, I guess you could probably make a very very very generalized argument for for similarity, but it'd be so overgeneralized as to be useless in actual debate. But as for the specific case of any actual linkage and influence, even in literary trope form, no that's not been claimed.