I studied it with a Shakespearean professor as an undergrad(I have an English Literature degree) and we did discuss whether or not Romeo and Juliet was a satire. I could be wrong, but I think that is one possible way to read it, but not the only way. It is nearly impossible now to surmise Shakespeare's intentions.

As a reference though, young love, that happens quickly, was a convention of the time. Similar love occurs in The Tempest and A Midsummer Night's Dream. The difference between those and Romeo and Juliet is that it is a tragedy while the others are comedies. This can reinforce the idea that Romeo and Juliet is a satire on those comedies, but it isn't proof.

I think the idea that many satire-theory proponents have that is overstated is that the lovers fall in love so quickly, it's unrealistic. In the theatre at that time that was perfectly normal for an entire story to happen in a short period of time (often under 24 hours, per Aristotle's theory of drama).

Overall it can go either way. It is more up to the reader to decide than may be comfortable for some. Personally I don't think it is. Rather I think it is a tragedy about the family and culture surrounding the characters.

Mods, please let me know if this isn't allowed (I'm not a historian, just a literary studies graduate) I'm on mobile so sorry if any of my facts are incorrect.

EDIT: I talked to my wife(also has a Literature degree) and she views it as a satire. She primarily cites the age of Juliet (13) and Romeo (probably similar) as evidence that they are too young for the play to be serious. That said, I can't find any sources saying that it was considered a satire when it was released, so I am inclined to continue saying I think it's a modern interpretation of the play.

hi! while there are several Shakespeare experts here, it would be worth x-posting to a specialist lit sub: /r/AskLiteraryStudies