Rousseau and Frankenstein

Is Rousseau’s state of nature confirmed or disconfirmed by Frankenstein?

When comparing Rousseau’s concept of what the “state of nature” is and Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein, I feel that I can draw many similarities. Rousseau’s idea of state of nature is confirmed in Frankenstein, because the idea of the state of nature deals with the idea of the savage, primitive man. Rousseau thinks that this primitive man is not at first violent, he learns how to be violent from society and the other humans in the world around him. This is mirrored in Frankenstein, who is at first kind and tries to do good, but is pushed in the end to evil acts because of society. Rousseau also believes that this natural man is essentially independent, does not need the help of technology or society, but can depend on itself because for natural man there is no society. This is true of Frankenstein, can even be taken as a direct example. He is a “man” that can do anything by himself, he can survive in the woods off of what the land gives him, and is at peace with the things around him. He could be an image of what Rousseau’s natural man once was.
The only part of this question that I feel is not a direct line to Frankenstein is the idea that Frankenstein could not even be considered a “man.” If we were to look at the question where Frankenstein is an animal, or a monster (something worse), then Rousseau’s state of nature would not even apply to him. He would not be human and would not fall under all of the categories Rousseau is talking about. Other than that, Rousseau’s state of nature is definitely confirmed by Frankenstein.